ReviewPain reports2026
The gender of the examiner affects pain perception and reporting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gender of examiner/experimenter can influence patients' pain experiences because of social and interpersonal dynamics. However, the magnitude and direction of this influence is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the gender of the examiner affects pain perception and reporting. After registration in PROSPERO (CRD42023473445), electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to identify clinical and experimental studies published up to March 18, 2025 that evaluated the impact of examiner gender on pain-related outcomes, eg, pain threshold, tolerance, and intensity. Two independent reviewers conducted abstract screening, full-text assessment, quality appraisal with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data extraction. Examiner gender was operationalized in the studies as a female/male classification corresponding to biological sex. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled effects for each pain variable. Of 3919 identified records, 27 studies (19 experimental and 8 clinical) that included 2494 participants met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analytic results showed that pain tolerance was significantly higher when assessed by male examiners (Hedges g = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05],
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.