ReviewPain reports
Delineating conditions and subtypes in chronic pain using neuroimaging.
Review in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The missing mechanistic link: Improving behavioral treatment efficacy for pediatric chronic pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Left to themselves: Time to target chronic pain in childhood rare diseases.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Review
- Chronic Abdominal Pain in IBD Research Initiative: Unraveling Biological Mechanisms and Patient Heterogeneity to Personalize Treatment and Improve Clinical Outcomes.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2021Article
- Supraspinal Mechanisms Underlying Ocular Pain.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differentiating subtypes of chronic pain still remains a challenge-both from a subjective and objective point of view. Personalized medicine is the current goal of modern medical care and is limited by the subjective nature of patient self-reporting of symptoms and behavioral evaluation. Physiology-focused techniques such as genome and epigenetic analyses inform the delineation of pain groups; however, except under rare circumstances, they have diluted effects that again, share a common reliance on behavioral evaluation. The application of structural neuroimaging towards distinguishing pain subtypes is a growing field and may inform pain-group classification through the analysis of brain regions showing hypertrophic and atrophic changes in the presence of pain. Analytical techniques such as machine-learning classifiers have the capacity to process large volumes of data and delineate diagnostically relevant information from neuroimaging analysis. The issue of defining a "brain type" is an emerging field aimed at interpreting observed brain changes and delineating their clinical identity/significance. In this review, 2 chronic pain conditions (migraine and irritable bowel syndrome) with similar clinical phenotypes are compared in terms of their structural neuroimaging findings. Independent investigations are compared with findings from application of machine-learning algorithms. Findings are discussed in terms of differentiating patient subgroups using neuroimaging data in patients with chronic pain and how they may be applied towards defining a personalized pain signature that helps segregate patient subgroups (eg, migraine with and without aura, with or without nausea; irritable bowel syndrome vs other functional gastrointestinal disorders).
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.