ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Rethinking Pain Assessment: Subjective Scales, Biomarkers, and Multimodal Integration.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
Pain assessment is fundamental in pain medicine, anesthesiology, perioperative care, and clinical trials, yet it remains difficult to standardize across diseases, populations, and care settings. This review organizes pain assessment into four interrelated layers: subjective experience, behavioral and functional proxies, mechanistic biosignals, and multimodal integration. Pain characteristics guide many clinical decisions, but they must be interpreted alongside diagnosis, imaging, laboratory findings, treatment context, and regulatory expectations for reliable and interpretable trial endpoints. Patient-reported scales remain central when feasible because they directly capture the experienced dimension of pain; however, in neonates, critically ill patients, and individuals with severe cognitive or communication impairment, behavioral and functional proxies may become the practical baseline rather than merely supplementary measures. Recent advances in observational scales, facial-expression analysis, sleep and activity monitoring, wearable sensing, electroencephalography, neuroimaging, biofluids, autonomic physiology, and artificial intelligence provide complementary information for phenotyping, monitoring, prediction, and treatment evaluation. These tools should not be treated as interchangeable measures of the same construct or as simple replacements for self-report. A task-oriented layered framework may help clarify what each indicator can and cannot answer, while emphasizing feasibility, reproducibility, effect size, external validation, interpretability, and clinical context.
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.