ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
A Systematic Review of Pain Drawings for Perioperative Patient Management.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pain is a highly individual experience that can challenge effective patient-doctor communication. Patient drawings of pain (PDs) have been proposed as a tool to enhance communication and understanding. We aimed to evaluate the strengths and limitations of PDs for (1) screening and diagnosis of pain conditions, (2) prediction of surgical outcomes, and (3) postoperative pain monitoring in pediatric and adult surgical patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to June 1, 2023. Studies assessing PDs in surgical populations were screened, and data on study design, patient population, and outcomes were extracted. Results: The search identified 10,815 articles, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 5977 patients. Six studies (23%) assessed PDs as screening or diagnostic tools; 4 of these (67%) reported PDs to be effective in identifying neuropathic pain. Nine studies (35%) examined PDs as predictors of postoperative outcomes, particularly after nerve decompression and spine surgery. Eleven studies (42%) evaluated PDs for postoperative follow-up, demonstrating their utility in tracking pain evolution over time. Conclusions: PDs represent a promising tool for preoperative screening and diagnosis of neuropathic pain, prediction of surgical response, and postoperative pain monitoring. However, heterogeneity in methodology highlights the need for standardized parameters and assessment criteria. Future prospective trials are warranted to establish consistent evaluation frameworks and to further define the clinical utility of PDs.
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.