Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35609964›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2022

Making sense of phantom limb pain.

Hunter R Schone, Chris I Baker, Joel Katz, Lone Nikolajsen, Katleho Limakatso, Herta Flor, Tamar R Makin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for refractory phantom limb pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Phantom Limb Pain Assessment Tools: A Literature Review Exploring Strengths and Limitations.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Motor cortex stimulation for phantom limb pain treatment.Surgical neurology international · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.

Hunter R SchoneNIMH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA schonehunter@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8496-2319
Chris I BakerNIMH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-8964
Joel KatzDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8686-447X
Lone NikolajsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2705-7088
Katleho LimakatsoDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Pain Management Unit, Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7906-4415
Herta FlorInstitute of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health/Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4809-5398
Tamar R MakinInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5816-8979
National Institutes of Health · USAarhus University · DKHeidelberg University · DEUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZAYork University · CA

Funding

Learning and plasticity in the human brainZIAMH002893 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI BAKER, CHRIS · 2009 to 2025
$6.8M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phantom limb pain (PLP) impacts the majority of individuals who undergo limb amputation. The PLP experience is highly heterogenous in its quality, intensity, frequency and severity. This heterogeneity, combined with the low prevalence of amputation in the general population, has made it difficult to accumulate reliable data on PLP. Consequently, we lack consensus on PLP mechanisms, as well as effective treatment options. However, the wealth of new PLP research, over the past decade, provides a unique opportunity to re-evaluate some of the core assumptions underlying what we know about PLP and the rationale behind PLP treatments. The goal of this review is to help generate consensus in the field on how best to research PLP, from phenomenology to treatment. We highlight conceptual and methodological challenges in studying PLP, which have hindered progress on the topic and spawned disagreement in the field, and offer potential solutions to overcome these challenges. Our hope is that a constructive evaluation of the foundational knowledge underlying PLP research practices will enable more informed decisions when testing the efficacy of existing interventions and will guide the development of the next generation of PLP treatments.

Indexed as

BRAIN MAPPINGCOGNITIONMOTOR CONTROLPAINSOMATISATION DISORDER

Identifiers

PMID35609964
PMCPMC9304093
OpenAlexW4281392018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.