Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30444733›Full record

ReviewThe Clinical journal of pain2019

The Multimodal Assessment Model of Pain: A Novel Framework for Further Integrating the Subjective Pain Experience Within Research and Practice.

Timothy H Wideman, Robert R Edwards, David M Walton, Marc O Martel, Anne Hudon, David A Seminowicz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Clinical journal of pain, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Lung Cancer Pain Quality Descriptors: More Similarities Than Differences by Patient Characteristics.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2026
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Management of Gynaecological Chronic Pelvic Pain in the Emergency Setting- A Scoping Review.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Decoding adolescent TMJ osteoarthritis with multimodal machine learning.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Timothy H WidemanSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy.
Robert R EdwardsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
David M WaltonSchool of Physical Therapy, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Marc O MartelFaculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, PQ.
Anne HudonSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo and Faculty of law, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
David A SeminowiczDepartment of Neural and Pain Sciences, School of Dentistry, and Center to Advance Chronic Pain Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPain assessment is enigmatic. Although clinicians and researchers must rely upon observations to evaluate pain, the personal experience of pain is fundamentally unobservable. This raises the question of how the inherent subjectivity of pain can and should be integrated within assessment. Current models fail to tackle key facets of this problem, such as what essential aspects of pain are overlooked when we only rely on numeric forms of assessment, and what types of assessment need to be prioritized to ensure alignment with our conceptualization of pain as a subjective experience. We present the multimodal assessment model of pain (MAP) as offering practical frameworks for navigating these challenges.

methodsThis is a narrative review.

resultsMAP delineates qualitative (words, behaviors) and quantitative (self-reported measures, non-self-reported measures) assessment and regards the qualitative pain narrative as the best available root proxy for inferring pain in others. MAP offers frameworks to better address pain subjectivity by: (1) delineating separate criteria for identifying versus assessing pain. Pain is identified through narrative reports, while comprehensive assessment is used to infer why pain is reported; (2) integrating compassion-based and mechanism-based management by both validating pain reports and assessing underlying processes; (3) conceptualizing comprehensive pain assessment as both multidimensional and multimodal (listening/observing and measuring); and (4) describing how qualitative data help validate and contextualize quantitative pain measures. DISCUSSION: MAP is expected to help clinicians validate pain reports as important and legitimate, regardless of other findings, and help our field develop more comprehensive, valid, and compassionate approaches to assessing pain.

Indexed as

Pain MeasurementHumansModels, TheoreticalPain

Identifiers

PMID30444733
PMCPMC6382036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.