ReviewPain2026
Real-world data and evidence in pain research: an IMMPACT comprehensive review and best practice recommendations.
Review in Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Procedural Optimization of Capsaicin 8% Patch Therapy Using Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Ankle Nerve Block in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer undergoing neratinib extended adjuvant therapy: a real-world prospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractReal-world data (RWD) can be defined as routinely collected clinical or administrative data that might be used for research purposes and to generate real-world evidence (RWE). Computerized search and data mining methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel computational and statistical methods allow for improved access to and analysis of RWD. Although RWD afford the opportunity to generate RWE with potentially improved efficiency and generalizability over prospective clinical studies, it is important to understand and apply best practices when analysing RWD, particularly when the goal is to generate RWE of diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment effectiveness. Real-world evidence can provide evidence complementary to randomized clinical trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. Real-world evidence studies need to be carefully designed, the research question clearly defined and addressable with the available RWD source, variables (treatment, outcome, covariates) operationalized, and hypotheses and analyses specified before data access. Sound interpretation of results requires a deep understanding of the benefits and limitations of RWE studies, including often deficient data quality, confounding, and other potential sources of bias. Registered protocols, registered reports as a publishing model, and/or restricted access to data until protocols are in place can be encouraged by journals and enforced by data guardians and will contribute to the emergence of high-quality RWD studies. Here, we summarize guidance documents on generating RWE of treatment effectiveness or comparative effectiveness, discuss the strengths and limitations of RWD and RWE, and provide recommendations for conducting effectiveness RWE studies in the pain field.
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.