BibTex format
@article{Pickering:2025:10.1002/ejp.4767,
author = {Pickering, G and O'Keeffe, M and Bannister, K and Becker, S and Cottom, S and Cox, FJ and Eisenberg, E and Finn, DP and Forget, P and GravenNielsen, T and Kalso, E and KocotKepska, M and LeiteAlmeida, H and LopezGarcia, JA and Meeus, M and Mouraux, A and Pereira, B and Puljak, L and Reneman, MF and Rohde, I and Sotiropoulos, I and Skidmore, N and Tölle, TR and Todorovic, ST and Truini, A and Vowles, KE and PogatzkiZahn, E and GarciaLarrea, L and Fullen, BM},
doi = {10.1002/ejp.4767},
journal = {European Journal of Pain},
title = {A pain research strategy for Europe: A European survey and position paper of the European Pain Federation <scp>EFIC</scp>},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4767},
volume = {29},
year = {2025}
}
RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)
TY - JOUR
AB - <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Pain is the leading cause of disability and reduced quality of life worldwide. Despite the increasing burden for patients and healthcare systems, pain research remains underfunded and under focused. Having stakeholders identify and prioritize areas that need urgent attention in the field will help focus funding topics, reduce ‘research waste’, improve the effectiveness of pain research and therapy and promote the uptake of research evidence. In this study, the European Pain Federation (EFIC) developed a Pain Research Strategy for Europe.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The study used multiple methods, including literature searches, multidisciplinary expert debate, a survey and a final consensus meeting. The crosssectional survey was conducted among 628 European pain researchers, clinicians, educators and industry professionals to obtain the rating and hierarchy of pain research priorities.</jats:p><jats:p>The final consensus meeting involved a multidisciplinary expert panel including people with lived experience from 23 countries. The survey results guided discussions where top priorities were agreed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Content analysis identified nine survey themes, of which five emerged as top priorities: (i) understand the pathophysiology of pain; (ii) understand and address comorbidities; (iii) critically assess current therapies; (iv) develop new treatments; and (v) explore the biopsychosocial impacts of pain. Physical, psychological and social approaches were prioritized at the same level as pharmacological treatments. The top priorities were endorsed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The panel emphasized the importance of also clearly communicating the con
AU - Pickering,G
AU - O'Keeffe,M
AU - Bannister,K
AU - Becker,S
AU - Cottom,S
AU - Cox,FJ
AU - Eisenberg,E
AU - Finn,DP
AU - Forget,P
AU - GravenNielsen,T
AU - Kalso,E
AU - KocotKepska,M
AU - LeiteAlmeida,H
AU - LopezGarcia,JA
AU - Meeus,M
AU - Mouraux,A
AU - Pereira,B
AU - Puljak,L
AU - Reneman,MF
AU - Rohde,I
AU - Sotiropoulos,I
AU - Skidmore,N
AU - Tölle,TR
AU - Todorovic,ST
AU - Truini,A
AU - Vowles,KE
AU - PogatzkiZahn,E
AU - GarciaLarrea,L
AU - Fullen,BM
DO - 10.1002/ejp.4767
PY - 2025///
SN - 1090-3801
TI - A pain research strategy for Europe: A European survey and position paper of the European Pain Federation <scp>EFIC</scp>
T2 - European Journal of Pain
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4767
UR - https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4767
VL - 29
ER -