SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Systematic review of prevalence of pain among people with dementia living in the community.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain is common among people living with dementia (PLWD) in the community and is associated with substantial negative consequences for both individuals and caregivers; however, knowledge regarding its prevalence and assessment in a community living population with dementia remains limited. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the prevalence of pain and the pain assessment inventories used among PLWD at home.
methodThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251136436) and was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. The searched databases include PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, AgeLine, the Cochrane Library, and Idunn, covering articles published from January 2000 to February 2026. Quantitative observational studies that reported pain through self-report questionnaires, staff- and/or caregiver- assessments were included to define the prevalence of pain in samples or subsamples of PLWD at home. The database search identified 1,296 records, of which 25 articles from 22 studies were included in the final review.
resultsSample sizes ranged from 36 to 1,379 PLWD at home. Pain was reported as any pain occurring within a defined timeframe, pain present on the day of assessment, pain meeting predefined severity criteria, or pain interfering with daily activities. The prevalence of pain among PLWD at home was consistently high, with higher prevalence estimates reported in studies assessing any pain compared with those applying severity or consequence-based criteria. The prevalence of any pain during the past month was found to vary between 36 and 76%. Considerable methodological heterogeneity was observed in terms of pain definitions, assessment methods, and inclusion criteria, which makes comparisons across studies difficult.
conclusionThe overall high prevalence of pain identified in this review underscores the need for systematic and standardized pain assessment for PLWD at home.
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.