ReviewPain2013
Methods for studying naturally occurring human pain and their analogues.
Review in Pain, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of sleep disturbance in reduced accuracy on a divided attention task among patients with fibromyalgia.Pain reports · 2024Article
- Shame Mediates the Relationship Between Pain Invalidation and Depression.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- A Quantitative Sensory Testing Approach to Pain in Autism Spectrum Disorders.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2020Article
- Experimental and procedural pain responses in primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review.Journal of pain research · 2017Review
- Nonlinear Effects of Noxious Thermal Stimulation and Working Memory Demands on Subjective Pain Perception.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2015Article
- A practical guide and perspectives on the use of experimental pain modalities with children and adolescents.Pain management · 2014Article
- The disruptive effects of pain on complex cognitive performance and executive control.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods for investigating human pain have been developed over the last 100years. Typically, researchers focus on people with clinical pain, or on healthy participants undergoing laboratory-controlled pain-induction techniques focussed mostly on exogenously generated skin nociception. Less commonly investigated are acute pain experiences that emerge naturally. Six common painful complaints were identified: headache, muscular pain, visceral pain, menstrual pain, dental pain, and pain associated with upper respiratory tract infection. Methods used to recruit participants with the natural occurrence of each pain complaint were identified, and features of their use reviewed. Also reviewed were experimental analogues designed to mimic these pains, with the exception of menstrual pain. Headache and menstrual pain appear to be most effectively researched in their naturally occurring form, whereas muscle and dental pain may be more easily induced. Upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain provide further challenges for researchers. Summary guidance is offered, and directions for methods development outlined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.