ArticlePain2026
Prevalence and correlates of "undiagnosed pain": evidence from the US national Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
Article in Pain, 2026. 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.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractThere are no nationally representative studies examining both the frequency and correlates of "undiagnosed pain"-pain without a formal diagnosis. To identify the magnitude of this healthcare gap, we performed cross-sectional secondary analyses of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), 2016-2019 data. The primary study outcome is "being undiagnosed": the absence of diagnoses for pain-related conditions among participants reporting pain-related interference (PRI). Pain-related interference was established using the SF36 pain question embedded in MEPS, with 10,954 individuals reporting any PRI within 4 weeks of the interview and 4,902 individuals reporting at least moderate PRI. Participants with PRI were assigned as "being undiagnosed" if the following conditions were met: (1) the participant did not have medical records for any pain-related conditions in both the previous and current year of the interview and (2) did not report having any pain-related priority conditions from a list provided during the MEPS interviews. Among those reporting any PRI, about 21.1 million people (9.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6%-10.0%) were without diagnoses for either primary pain conditions identified using MEPS clinical classification codes or conditions where pain would be a secondary symptom (eg, hypertension and immunity disorders). From multivariable logistic regression modeling, we determined that younger and middle-aged adults, males, racial and ethnic minority groups, foreign-born populations, people without insurance, and people with better perceived health are more likely to have their pain undiagnosed. Our findings underscore the need for improved access to care and better patient-provider communications in those suffering from underdiagnosed 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.