ReviewPain reports2025
Medical jurisprudence in the context of chronic musculoskeletal nociplastic pain: the clinical medico-legal interface.
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 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.
- The stigmatization of patients with chronic pain due to assessed exaggeration of symptoms.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain is prevalent and often the cause of medico-legal dispute. Pain with an unknown etiology that occurs in the absence of substantial tissue abnormality has challenged the health care community for decades. The World Health Organization now recognizes chronic primary pain (CPP) conditions as valid conditions that are prevalent and a cause of considerable suffering. Without an objective test or biomarker to confirm diagnosis or measure severity, CPP conditions may be brought before the Court with questions of severity, causation, functional impairment, and disablement. The many subjective symptoms that associate with CPP pain add to the total burden of illness and also to the complexity of the adjudication process. This review will discuss the responsibilities of clinicians when providing an opinion to aid a legal adjudication process. Medical information regarding CPP should be objectively and clearly stated, without bias and must remain within the practice domain of the clinician. The distinct roles of the treating clinician and the medico-legal expert will be compared. Issues concerning assessment of severity, validity measures to assess subjective symptoms, matters of causation, and impact on function are discussed. Irrespective of the legal setting, whether a regional tribunal or higher national court, the health care professional providing testimony must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Understanding the medico-legal process that functions in parallel, but differently from clinical care, will prepare health care professionals to provide relevant information that will lead to a fair and just outcome for those truly suffering with chronic pain.
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.