ArticleBMC public health2018
Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding.
Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topical RM191A gel for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Trial
- Time to Implement the ICD-11 Classification in Pain!European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Physiological Adaptations and Serum-Based Biomarker Dynamics During Multimodal Rehabilitation in Chronic Pain: Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of immunosuppression after limb fracture in mice on nociceptive, cognitive, and anxiety-related outcomes.Pain reports · 2024Article
- We Choose to Call it 'Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy': Findings of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an International and Multi-Stakeholder Partnership to Agree a Standard Unifying Term and Definition for a Disease.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Chronic Pain in the ICD-11: New Diagnoses That Clinical Psychologists Should Know About.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2022Article
- Impact of persistent pain symptoms on work absence, health status and employment 18 months following disabling work-related injury or illness.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2022Article
- Chronic Cancer Pain: Opioids within Tumor Microenvironment Affect Neuroinflammation, Tumor and Pain Evolution.Cancers · 2022Review
- ICD-11 Classification of Pediatric Chronic Pain Referrals in Ireland, with Secondary Analysis of Primary vs Secondary Pain Conditions.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2021Article
- IL-6 signaling mediates the germinal center response, IgM production and nociceptive sensitization in male mice after tibia fracture.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2021Article
- Evaluation of thePain reportsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
methodsFive independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
resultsThe two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
conclusionsThe categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.
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.