Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review

Etienne K. Duranté, Alexandre Ribeiro, Lucie Gaspard-Boulinc, Isabelle Boutron, Chantal Henry, Anne-Cecile Petit, Josselin Houenou, Cedric Lemogne, Astrid Chevance
{"title":"Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review","authors":"Etienne K. Duranté, Alexandre Ribeiro, Lucie Gaspard-Boulinc, Isabelle Boutron, Chantal Henry, Anne-Cecile Petit, Josselin Houenou, Cedric Lemogne, Astrid Chevance","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2024.292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Background</span><p>Researchers 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.</p><span>Aims</span><p>To 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).</p><span>Method</span><p>This 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).</p><span>Results</span><p>We 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.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Biomedical 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22495,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Researchers 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.

Aims

To 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).

Method

This 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).

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

Biomedical 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.

背景研究人员探索了并非主要由身体感受到的疼痛体验("非身体疼痛")的生物学特征,有时也被称为精神、社会或情感疼痛。目标绘制调查非物理性疼痛生物学特征的研究图,重点关注其概念特征(即非物理性疼痛的术语和定义)和方法特征(如实验范式和测量方法)。方法本方法论系统综述在 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science 中检索了有关非物理性疼痛生物学特征的主要研究报告。采用元研究方法,我们对术语、定义、人群、实验范式、混杂因素、非物理性疼痛的测量方法和调查方法(如功能性磁共振成像)等方面的结果进行了综合分析。结果我们确定了 92 项人类研究,涉及 7778 名参与者。总体而言,59.1%的研究没有报告非物理性疼痛的定义,82%的研究没有使用特定的测量方法。关于将研究结果应用于临床的可能性,大多数人类研究仅涉及健康参与者(71.7%),而用于诱发非物理性疼痛的七种不同实验范式的外部有效性尚不明确。32.4%的实验研究没有考虑到干扰因素。动物研究很少,只有四项啮齿类动物研究。结论:非物理性疼痛的生物医学研究使用的概念不尽相同,重叠不清,方法的外部有效性不明。与身体疼痛的研究一样,当务之急包括确定非身体疼痛的公认定义和测量方法,以及开发具有良好外部有效性的实验范例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信