ReviewPain reports2025
The current state of digital manikins to support pain self-reporting: a systematic literature review.
Review in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Scoping review of equity considerations in digitally enabled patient education interventions for self-managing chronic musculoskeletal pain.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Summary and Analysis of Digital Pain Manikin Data in Adults With Pain Experience: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
This systematic literature review aimed to explore the current state of digital manikins to support pain self-reporting and to explore the extent to which manikins had progressed along the translational pathway. We systematically searched six electronic databases using a combination of key words and MeSH terms for "pain" and "manikin" to identify original studies in English that used a digital pain manikin for collecting information from adults with any condition. We extracted and descriptively synthesised data on the characteristics of studies and digital pain manikins and mapped them to a stage of the translational pathway (ie, design, testing, metric validation, and diffusion). We screened 6,189 articles, of which we included 104. Articles reported on 31 unique digital pain manikins. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 60; 58%), recruited people with pain/painful conditions (n = 69; 66%) from clinical settings (n = 67; 64%). Of the 31 manikins, the majority were two-dimensional (n = 21; 68%) with a front and back body view (n = 18; 58%) and allowed users to draw their pain on any area of the manikin (n = 23; 74%). Most manikins were still in the development and testing stages (n = 23; 74%). Only eight (26%) had progressed fully through the translational pathway, taking between 7 and 20 years to go from early development to diffusion. We found a substantial number of mostly two-dimensional digital pain manikins reported on in the last decade. However, most were still at early stages of the translational pathway, with only few having progressed through to diffusion into research and health care settings.
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.