ReviewPain reports2026
A scoping review on the characteristics of chronic pain registries.
Review in Pain reports, 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
Chronic pain represents a major global public health challenge, yet systematic surveillance through patient registries remains unevenly developed. Pain registries offer valuable real-world data to inform clinical practice, research, and policy; however, their global scope, design characteristics, and data elements have not been comprehensively mapped. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize existing chronic pain registries worldwide by examining their geographic distribution, registry design, clinical focus, data domains, and methodological features, including population characteristics, data collection methods, clinical and patient-reported outcomes, follow-up practices, and governance structures. Multiple electronic databases and registry-specific sources were systematically searched to identify chronic pain registries. A total of 36 chronic pain registries were identified across multiple continents, with detailed dataset information available for 16 registries. Registries were predominantly concentrated in high-income countries, particularly Europe and North America, with minimal representation from low- and middle-income regions. Most registries captured broad chronic pain populations, whereas condition-specific registries primarily focused on headache and migraine and fibromyalgia. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in registry scale, maturity, and data domains. Although pain intensity and patient-reported outcomes were commonly recorded, key elements such as pain mechanism classification, socioeconomic variables, and economic evaluations were inconsistently reported. To conclude, the global chronic pain registry landscape remains fragmented, with substantial geographic and methodological disparities. Harmonized data standards, broader geographic representation, and incorporation of mechanism-based and socioeconomic data are essential to enhance the comparability, translational value, and equity in chronic pain research worldwide.
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.