ReviewFrontiers in sleep2026
Chronic pain in narcolepsy reflects interacting neurobiological and psychological mechanisms: a mini-review.
Review in Frontiers in sleep, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic pain prevalence is increased in the sleep disorder narcolepsy, but the underlying reason for this remains debated. This mini review summarizes and discusses current evidence on links between narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) and type 2 (NT2) and chronic pain, exploring whether pain is best understood as a consequence of the pathophysiology or secondary to its manifestations and comorbidities. Registry-based and self-reported data indicate a high prevalence of chronic pain in NT1, while objective pain tests show inconsistent differences between NT1 and healthy individuals. This discrepancy suggests involvement of secondary mechanisms not readily captured by experimental pain testing. Comparable pain prevalence in NT1 and NT2 also speaks against orexin deficiency as a sole driver of chronic pain in NT1. Alternatively, altered dopaminergic signaling downstream of orexin could be a shared contributor to pain in NT1 and other fatigue-related conditions. Finally, the presence of activating autoantibodies in NT1 suggests a possible immune-mediated component for some patients. Overall, chronic pain is highly prevalent in both NT1 and NT2. It likely arises from a combination of neurobiological and psychological factors, with immune mechanisms as a possible additional contributor, rather than, in NT1, orexin dysfunction alone. This perspective highlights the clinical need for more holistic treatment approaches and for future studies with improved case-control matching, larger NT1 samples, especially among patients with chronic pain, and more detailed comparisons with NT2.
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.