ReviewCureus2025
Understanding Cancer-Related Pain: Pathophysiology, Classification, and Treatment Modalities.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of psychological interventions versus standard care for cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Towards Intelligent Pain Monitoring Systems: A Survey of Recent Technologies and Methods.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- Dilated Gallbladder Causing Right Iliac Fossa Pain in a Patient with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Diagnostic and Symptom Management Challenge at End of Life.Palliative medicine reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer-related pain (CRP) is a complex, multidimensional challenge in oncology that undermines quality of life, psychological well-being, and treatment adherence. This narrative, mechanism-informed review synthesizes pathophysiology, classification systems, and multidisciplinary management strategies to provide clinical insights and research priorities. It connects nociceptive, neuropathic, and mixed pain mechanisms to practical interventions, emphasizing peripheral and central sensitization in chronicity. Major frameworks, including the WHO analgesic ladder, International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain, and European Pain Federation standards, are appraised alongside assessment tools such as the Visual Analogue Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, with examples of their clinical application. Management is framed within a flexible, mechanism-based, multimodal model that integrates pharmacologic, adjuvant, interventional, and psychosocial approaches, delivered through coordinated, multidisciplinary teams. Evidence for complementary modalities, such as acupuncture and mindfulness-based stress reduction, remains preliminary and heterogeneous, requiring further high-quality trials, whereas opioid-based pharmacologic approaches and structured psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy are supported by more robust, established evidence. Similarly, innovations like AI-driven monitoring and pharmacogenomics hold promise but are still in the early validation phase, underscoring the need to distinguish between evolving and well-established domains of cancer pain management. The principal actionable priorities are to adopt mechanism-based classification, embed multidisciplinary collaboration, expand multimodal access in low-resource settings, and rigorously validate emerging pharmacogenomic and digital health innovations before widespread clinical integration.
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.