ArticleIBRO neuroscience reports2025
A review on mismatch negativity in chronic pain.
Article in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic pain impacts millions worldwide, and places a significant strain upon healthcare systems, yet current treatments are largely suboptimal. Multiple studies have noted differences in various event-related potentials (ERP) in patients with chronic pain, and one of the primary ERP components of interest is mismatch negativity (MMN). It is currently not established whether alterations in MMN is a biomarker of chronic pain. The aim of this review is to assess how MMN is altered in patients with chronic pain. We carried out a systematic search of Embase, Medline and PubMed databases with the terms 'chronic pain' and 'mismatch negativity' and found seventeen studies. Seven screened studies were included in the final review. Of these, one cohort underwent experimentally induced chronic pain, whereas the other cohorts had a range of chronic pain conditions. Five studies measured magnitude of MMN responses, whilst two focused on latency. Three studies found smaller amplitudes in chronic pain, and both studies found longer latency. Both the studies with larger MMN reported that it was due to increased attention to the pain. In conclusion, this (first) literature review on MMN in chronic pain found that these studies offered wide-ranging applications of MMN, from understanding the neural pathophysiology of chronic pain to therapeutic advances. Given the limited number of studies and unexplored effect of pain medication on MMN, more studies are required to establish if MMN is a reliable pharmacodynamic marker of chronic 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.