ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2024
Patients and clinicians have different priorities when discussing pain in the IBD clinic.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferences, Expectations and Management Satisfaction in IBD Patients: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Medical Gaslighting in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review From Pediatric and Adult Practice.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- The Dedicated Inflammatory Bowel Disease Nurse, If You Know Them, You Love Them: Survey of the Italian IBD Patients' Association.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePain in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is frequently neglected/overlooked, particularly in ulcerative colitis, and communication about pain can be suboptimal. The current study juxtaposes clinicians' conceptualisations of patients' pain with patient narratives. The aim was to inform the development of a pain reporting tool and provide guidance for better communication about IBD pain.
methodsIn-depth semistructured interviews with 13 IBD clinicians in the UK: gastroenterologists (n=5), colorectal surgeons (n=2), specialist nurses (n=4) and psychologists (n=2). Primary analysis of these data and secondary analysis of earlier interviews about pain in IBD with clinicians (n=12) and patients (n=71) followed principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Themes were compared across participant groups.
resultsClinicians state that they regularly ask about pain in Crohn's disease, but not ulcerative colitis. Patients, however, report inconsistent attention to pain in either condition, with power dynamics constraining their pain report. Some clinicians acknowledged that they assume that patients manage their pain independently, leading to insufficient follow-up (Theme 1: Contradictions and ambiguities when discussing pain in IBD). Inadequate acknowledgement of pain by clinicians was attributed to time constraints and systemic issues. Where inflammatory or structural causes were lacking, some clinicians default to attributing pain to irritable bowel syndrome, contributing to patients feeling uncared for (Theme 2: Consequences of limited tools and time for pain). Addressing pain was further complicated by the reluctance of some patients to express discomfort or pain and others who avoided activities that might lead to pain (Theme 3: Addressing pain in patients who do not complain).
conclusionThe study emphasises the importance of consistent pain evaluation and management, advocating for more open dialogues between clinicians and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.