ReviewPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2025
The NIH HEAL pain common data elements (CDE): a great start but a long way to the finish line.
Review in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do somatic symptoms bias depression screening? Reliability and equivalence of PHQ-8 in those with and without chronic pain: A nationally representative study of U.S. adults.Journal of affective disorders · 2026Article
- Pain assessment tools in patients with substance use disorders: a systematic scoping review.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Extending the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model for Critical Care Medicine: A Framework for Standardizing Complex ICU Data Using the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Critical Care Data Dictionary (C2D2).Critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond nociception: rethinking pain in ovarian endometriosis a pilot study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Leveraging the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Tool to Address Geographic Disparities in Cancer Care: A Dual-Application Framework for Institutional and National Initiatives.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- A roadmap for artificial intelligence in pain medicine: current status, opportunities, and requirements.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025Review
- Reliability and equivalence of the 8-item version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) to screen for depressive symptoms in adults with chronic pain: A representative U.S. population study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Common Data Element (CDE) Success from Community-Engagement Not Mandates: If You Build It [Data Warehouse], Will They [Participants] Come?American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Building community through data: the value of a researcher driven open science ecosystem.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Automated multi-instance REDCap data synchronization for NIH clinical trial networks.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Navigating the new NIH Data Management Sharing plan: the NIH HEAL Initiative Data2Action DMPTool template.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Breaking Digital Health Barriers Through a Large Language Model-Based Tool for Automated Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Mapping: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pain Common Data Elements (CDEs) provide a standardized framework for pain research, but their implementation and interpretation present challenges.
objectivesTo review the NIH CDE Program's selected pain domains, provide best practices for implementing required questions, and offer a checklist for appropriate CDE use in clinical trials and secondary data analysis. This work analyzed the 10 core pain research domains selected by the NIH CDE Program and discuss their limitations and considerations for use.
resultsThe manuscript provides an overview of the 10 core pain research domains, including pain intensity, interference, physical function, sleep, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, global impression of change, substance use screening, and quality of life. It offers sample scenarios for implementing required questions and presents a checklist to guide researchers in using pain CDEs effectively for clinical trials and secondary data analysis.
conclusionKey challenges identified include contextual variability, lack of validation across all pain conditions and populations, and potential misuse or misinterpretation of measures. This work proposes solutions such as supplementary measures, context-specific guidance, comprehensive training programs, and ongoing refinement of the CDE framework. While NIH Pain CDEs are valuable tools for standardizing pain assessment in research, addressing challenges in their implementation and interpretation is crucial for improving the consistency, validity, and interpretability of pain research data, ultimately advancing the field and enhancing patient care.
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.