ArticlePain research & management2026
An Ecologically Valid Experimental Model for Repeated Evoked Pain Using a Wearable Device in Pain-Free Individuals: A Pilot Feasibility Study.
Article in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Ecologically Valid Experimental Model for Repeated Evoked Pain Using a Wearable Device in Pain-Free Individuals: A Pilot Feasibility Study.Pain research & management · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Evoked experimental pain is a central method for studying basic pain mechanisms in humans. However, traditional methods of evoked pain delivered in controlled lab settings lack ecological validity and limits testing to short intervals. This study tested the feasibility, tolerability and construct validity of a new model for experimental evoked pain in participants' daily environments, using a wearable device that delivered electric shocks to the wrist. Ten pain-free individuals received 7 electric shocks over a period of one day (between 10:00 and 21:00) and completed ecological momentary assessment (EMA) following each stimulus. Shocks were individually calibrated to 4 out of 10 (NRS; 0 = No shock felt, 10 = Shock is intolerable). All participants completed the full study protocol, and no adverse events were reported. Overall, 84.1% of shocks were rated above 1.5 on pain intensity (VAS 0-10; 0 = No pain, 10 = Extreme pain). On average, pain intensity was rated 4.10 (SD = 1.99; VAS 0-10), consistent with individual calibration. Shock interference, rated retrospectively at the end-of-day EMA, was relatively low (M = 2.05, SD = 1.52; 0-10 VAS; range = 0-3.7), and most reported carrying out activities as planned. These results indicate that this model of experimental pain is feasible and tolerable for participants and successfully evokes pain in an ecologically valid setting. In future studies, this method may be applied over multiple days to investigate pain perception over time, with manipulating stimulus parameters, or in connection with daily activities.
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.