ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2025
Trends in Mixed Pain Research Over Three Decades (1993-2024): A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mixed pain: has pain medicine overlooked Its most common phenotype for over 20 years? A perspective on mechanistic interaction, the nociplastic paradox, and the future of pain classification.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Mixed pain: clinical practice recommendations.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Mixed-mechanism analgesics for mixed pain.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe term "mixed pain" is frequently used in clinical practice to describe the coexistence of nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain mechanisms. However, its inconsistent use and lack of a formal definition warrant further investigation. This bibliometric analysis aims to explore publication trends, research networks, and key themes in mixed pain literature.
methodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection. The search was performed in February 2024, with journal rankings obtained from Journal Citation Reports™ 2022 (Clarivate Analytics). Extracted data included publication trends, citation analysis, co-authorship networks, and keyword mapping.
resultsA total of 229 publications were identified, demonstrating an increasing trend in both publication volume and citations. Most studies were published in high-ranking Q1 journals as research (77%) and review articles (19%). The USA (21%), Italy (15%), and Germany (12%) were the leading contributors, yet global collaboration was weak, with limited co-authorship connections except within the USA. The keyword analysis revealed five major research clusters, with "neuropathic pain," "management," and "quality of life" emerging as central themes.
conclusionsDespite the progressive increase in mixed pain articles in highly ranked journals, this bibliometric analysis highlighted the absence of a well-structured collaborative network among authors and a lack of clear connections between keywords. Given the critical clinical implications of mixed pain, further high-quality studies on this topic and enhanced international collaborations are recommended.
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.