Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40893022›Full record

ReviewPain2026

Real-world data and evidence in pain research: an IMMPACT comprehensive review and best practice recommendations.

Jan Vollert, John Spivack, Blythe Adamson, Ralf Baron, John T Farrar, Ian Gilron, David Hohenschurz-Schmidt, Robert D Kerns, Sean Mackey, John D Markman and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Jan VollertDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0733-5201
John SpivackBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Program, Hospital for Special Surgery Research Institute, New York, NY, United States.
Blythe AdamsonFlatiron Health, New York, NY, United States.
Ralf BaronDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany.
John T FarrarDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Ian GilronDepartments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Biomedical & Molecular, Sciences, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, and School of Policy Studies, Queen's University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, ON, Canada.
David Hohenschurz-SchmidtPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Robert D KernsDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Sean MackeyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
John D MarkmanDepartments of Neurosurgery and.
Michael P McDermottBiostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Michael ParidesBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Program, Hospital for Special Surgery Research Institute, New York, NY, United States.
Andrew S C RicePain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Dennis C TurkUniversity of Washington, WA, United States.
Ajay D WasanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Robert H DworkinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Dale J LangfordDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Management, Pain Prevention Research Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States.
ACTTION'S Consortium on Pain Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Safety Studies (COPESS)

Funding

U.S. Food and Drug Administration IMMPACT
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchPainPain ManagementHumansResearch DesignElectronic health recordHistoric controlReal-worldReal-world dataReal-world evidenceRegistriesRegistry

Identifiers

PMID40893022
PMCPMC12709636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.