The epidemiology of chronic pain in children and adolescents revisited: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic and recurrent pain not associated with a disease is very common in childhood and adolescence, but studies of pain prevalence have yielded inconsistent findings. This systematic review examined studies of chronic and recurrent pain prevalence to provide updated aggregated prevalence rates. The review also examined correlates of chronic and recurrent pain such as age, sex, and psychosocial functioning. Studies of pain prevalence rates in children and adolescents published in English or French between 1991 and 2009 were identified using EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. Of 185 published papers yielded by the search, 58 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed, and 41 were included in the review. Two independent reviewers screened papers for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies. Prevalence rates ranged substantially, and were as follows: headache: 8-83%; abdominal pain: 4-53%; back pain: 14-24%; musculoskeletal pain: 4-40%; multiple pains: 4-49%; other pains: 5-88%. Pain prevalence rates were generally higher in girls and increased with age for most pain types. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher pain prevalence especially for headache. Most studies did not meet quality criteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".