Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41143857›Full record

ArticlePain2026

Building causal models in pain research: the case of executive functioning and transitions in pain states.

Annick L De Paepe, Anna Gibby, Laura Oporto-Lisboa, Beate Ehrhardt, Matthew Nunes, Emma Fisher, Edmund Keogh, Christopher Eccleston, Charlotte Woolley, John McBeth and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Annick L De PaepeFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Anna GibbyCentre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Laura Oporto-LisboaInstitute for Mathematical Innovation, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Beate EhrhardtInstitute for Mathematical Innovation, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Matthew NunesDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Emma FisherCentre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Edmund KeoghCentre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Christopher EcclestonFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Charlotte WoolleyFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John McBethFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Geert CrombezFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek W001721NMedical Research Council MR/W004151/1, MR/W026872/1, MR/W002388/1Versus Arthritis 22891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractPain states fluctuate over time and across situations. Similarly, there is variation in risk and protective factors and how they impact on these pain-related transitions. We are interested in whether such variations are more than random, and whether they can be accounted for by observed variables. The availability of large longitudinal datasets, such as UK Biobank ( https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ ), offers a unique opportunity to study these variations at scale. However, such datasets bring a high risk of bias (eg, confounding) and danger of over-interpretation. It is therefore important to be transparent about our causal thinking. Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are graphical representations of the hypothesized causal relationships between variables. They are used to identify the smallest set of variables that need to be adjusted to remove confounding bias in estimating the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. However, use of DAGs in pain research is not common, despite their potential to guide study design and data analysis. In this article, we present a workflow for building a DAG using domain knowledge from 3 different sources: researchers (theory-based), people with lived experience (person-based), and the literature (evidence-based). We created a DAG for the putative effect of executive function on the maintenance of chronic high-impact pain. The resulting DAG provides a valuable framework for guiding future research on the role of executive functioning in pain, and it underscores the broader potential of using DAGs to improve causal inference in pain research.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionPainCausalityHumansCausalityDirected acyclic graphsExecutive functioningPain

Identifiers

PMID41143857
PMCPMC12794360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.