Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35902215›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2022

How to measure mental pain: a systematic review assessing measures of mental pain.

Camille Charvet, Isabelle Boutron, Yannick Morvan, Catherine Le Berre, Suzanne Touboul, Raphaël Gaillard, Eiko Fried, Astrid Chevance

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Evidence-based mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07132099 (RCT Comparing ASSIP and ACT on Mental Pain and Suicidal Ideation in Individuals With Suicide Attempts), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT07132099 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

RCT Comparing ASSIP and ACT on Mental Pain and Suicidal Ideation in Individuals With Suicide Attempts

TypeinterventionalSponsorArdakan UniversityRan2025 to 2025Enrolled60ConditionsSuicide, Suicide IdeationArmsAttempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Treatment as Usual (TAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Symptom content analysis of OSA questionnaires: time to identify and improve relevance of diversity of OSA symptoms?Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Camille CharvetMedical School, Sorbonne Université, FR-75006, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronCRESS U1153, Université Paris-Cité, Inserm, FR-75006, Paris, France.
Yannick MorvanCESP, Inserm, Maison de Solenn, FR-75005, Paris, France.
Catherine Le BerreCRESS U1153, Université Paris-Cité, Inserm, FR-75006, Paris, France.
Suzanne TouboulPerson with Lived Experience, Paris, France.
Raphaël GaillardDepartment of Psychiatry, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire, GHU Paris Psychiatry &Neurosciences, FR-75014, Paris, France.
Eiko FriedDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Astrid ChevanceCRESS U1153, Université Paris-Cité, Inserm, FR-75006, Paris, France astrid.chevance@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0852-4322
Inserm · FRLeiden University · NLSorbonne Université · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

questionAlthough mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure's development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties.

findingsWe identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated 'inadequate' or 'doubtful'. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242679.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersSuicideHumansPainPsychometricsSelf Reportadult psychiatryanxiety disordersdepression & mood disorderssubstance misusesuicide & self-harm

Identifiers

PMID35902215
PMCPMC10231614
OpenAlexW4288426341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.