ArticleBMJ public health2025
Problem of pain in the USA: evaluating the generalisability of high-impact chronic pain models over time using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does Interoceptive Sensibility Mediate the Relationship Between Emotional Distress and Pain Severity? A Cross-Sectional Study in Chronic Pain and Pain-Free Individuals.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: High-impact chronic pain (HICP) significantly affects the quality of life for millions of U.S. adults, imposing substantial economic/healthcare burdens. Disproportionate effects are observed among racial/ethnic minorities and older adults. Methods: We leveraged the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2016 (n=32,980), 2017 (n=26,700), and 2021 (n=28,740) to validate and develop analytical models for HICP. Initial models (2016 NHIS data) identified correlates associated with HICP, including hospital stays, diagnosis of specific diseases, psychological symptoms, and employment status. We assessed the models' generalizability and drew comparisons across time. We constructed five validation scenarios to account for variations in the availability of predictor variables across datasets and different time frames for pain assessment questions. We used logistic regression with LASSO and random forest techniques. We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and overall performance using metrics such as area under the curve (AUC), calibration slope, and Brier score. Results: Scenario 1, validating the NHIS 2016 model against 2017 data, demonstrated excellent discrimination with an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90) for both LASSO and random forest models. Subgroup-specific performance varied, with the lowest AUC among adults aged ≥65 years (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78-0.82) and the highest among Hispanic respondents (0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.94). Model calibration was generally robust, although underfitting was observed for Hispanic respondents (calibration slope: 1.31). Scenario 3, testing the NHIS 2016 model on 2021 data, showed reduced discrimination (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.81-0.83) and overfitting (calibration slopes < 1). De novo models based on 2021 data showed comparable discrimination (AUC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.85-0.87) but poorer calibration when validated against older datasets. Conclusion: These findings underscore the potential of these models to guide personalized medicine strategies for HICP, aiming for more preventive rather than reactive healthcare. However, the model's broader applicability requires further validation in varied settings and global populations.
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.