SynthesisThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2025
Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearchers explore the biology of painful experiences not primarily felt in the body ('non-physical pain'), sometimes referred to as mental, social or emotional pain. A critical challenge lies in how to operationalise this subjective experience for biological research, a crucial process for translating findings into clinical practice.
aimsTo map studies investigating biological features of non-physical pain, focusing on their conceptual features (i.e. terms and definitions of non-physical pain) and methodological characteristics (e.g. experimental paradigms and measures).
methodThis methodological systematic review searched reports of primary research on the biological features of non-physical pain across Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science. Using a meta-research approach, we synthetised results on terms, definitions, populations, experimental paradigms, confounders, measures of non-physical pain and investigation methods (e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging).
resultsWe identified 92 human studies, involving 7778 participants. Overall, 59.1% of the studies did not report any definition of non-physical pain, and 82% of studies did not use a specific measure. Regarding the possibility of translating results to clinical settings, most of the human studies involved only healthy participants (71.7%) and the seven different experimental paradigms used to induce non-physical pain had unknown external validity. Confounders were not considered by 32.4% of the experimental studies. Animal studies were rare, with only four rodent studies.
conclusionsBiomedical studies of non-physical pain use heterogeneous concepts with unclear overlaps and methods with unknown external validity. As has been done for physical pain, priority actions include establishing an agreed definition and measurement of non-physical pain and developing experimental paradigms with good external validity.
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.