ArticleBritish journal of pain2026
How chronic pain is defined matters: Prevalence estimates and health-related quality of life under alternative definitions.
Article in British journal of 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain is a leading cause of long-term disability, yet prevalence estimates vary widely due to differences in operational definitions. Although a 3-month duration criterion is commonly used, it may not adequately reflect the functional burden of chronic pain. This study compared prevalence estimates derived from alternative chronic pain definitions and evaluated which best identify individuals with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: Data were drawn from a population-based sample of adults (n = 5557). Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory, and HRQoL was measured with the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12v2). Six definitions were examined: duration-only (≥3 months), pain pattern (constant or daily intermittent), pain severity thresholds (≥3 and ≥4), and pain interference thresholds (≥3 and ≥4). Results: Prevalence estimates varied substantially by definition, ranging from 40.1% using duration alone to 12.0% using pain interference ≥4. Increasingly restrictive definitions were associated with progressively lower physical and mental health scores. Effect sizes for physical health impairment increased from Cohen's d = 0.81 for the duration-only definition to 1.68 for the most restrictive interference-based definition. Definitions incorporating pain interference most clearly distinguished individuals with reduced HRQoL. Conclusions: The operational definition of chronic pain strongly influences both prevalence estimates and identification of clinically meaningful impairment. Definitions incorporating functional impact more accurately identify high-burden chronic pain than duration alone, supporting the integration of temporal and functional dimensions in standardised definitions.
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.