Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

A study spanning 118 countries reveals a divide in pain and aging (opens in a new tab)

news-medical.net · 2026-10-08

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

The claims we could check match the study, but some claims were not covered by the evidence reviewed.

  • 2 supported
  • 4 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Every claim we could check holds up. Two of six claims match the study. This overall rating is based only on the claims we could check. Four claims the study doesn't address.

  • 2 supported
  • 4 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

6 claims in this story

Showing all 6 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 6Not coveredThe article says musculoskeletal pain in the back, hip, and knee rises most rapidly between ages 20 and 55 and reaches its highest levels at or beyond age 75, while headache, abdominal pain, neck or shoulder pain, elbow pain, and facial pain often peak in mid-to-late adulthood and then decline.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports only the broad statement that pain prevalence increased most steeply before age 55. It does not provide the detailed site-specific age trajectories claimed here, such as back/hip/knee pain rising most rapidly between ages 20 and 55 and peaking at or beyond age 75, or headache, abdominal, neck/shoulder, elbow, and facial pain peaking in mid-to-late adulthood and then declining. This level of detail is not verifiable at abstract depth.

1

Study evidence

Pain prevalence varied by anatomical site, from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain.Prevalence range: ~2% (facial pain) to ~40% (back pain).

“we harmonized individual-level self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries to establish global reference trajectories of pain.”
2

Study evidence

Site-specific pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites varied widely, reported as roughly 2% for facial pain up to 40% for back pain.≈2% to 40%

“Pain prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, was consistently higher in women across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range: 1.08-1.83) and increased most steeply before age 55 years.”
Claim 2 of 6Not coveredThe study found that overall pain prevalence ranged from 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, and women reported higher prevalence than men across all 11 sites, with the largest gender differences for facial pain, headache, and stomach or abdominal pain.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated83% higher facial pain, 74% higher headache, 60% higher stomach/abdominal pain in women

Why this verdict

The abstract supports the overall prevalence range, from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, and supports higher prevalence among women across all 11 sites with risk ratios ranging from 1.08 to 1.83. However, the abstract-level profile does not verify the claim that the largest sex differences were specifically for facial pain, headache, and stomach/abdominal pain, nor the site-specific magnitudes of 83%, 74%, and 60% higher prevalence. Those details may be in the full text but are not verifiable from the supplied abstract profile.

1

Study evidence

Site-specific pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites varied widely, reported as roughly 2% for facial pain up to 40% for back pain.≈2% to 40%

“Pain prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, was consistently higher in women across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range: 1.08-1.83) and increased most steeply before age 55 years.”
Claim 3 of 6Not coveredIt reports that countries with low Human Development Index values show steeper increases in any bodily pain, joint pain, and back pain from age 40 onward, with low-back pain nearly twofold higher at the oldest ages than in high-HDI countries.View evidenceHide evidence

As statednearly twofold higher low back pain in low-HDI countries at the oldest ages

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports higher late-life pain prevalence in lowest-HDI countries, including a 30.6 percentage-point higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain and low back pain approaching twice the prevalence at the oldest ages. However, it does not verify the more detailed framing that low-HDI countries show steeper increases from age 40 onward for any bodily pain, joint pain, and back pain. The near-twofold low-back-pain part is supported, but the age-40 and joint-pain details require full-text evidence.

1

Study evidence

Individuals in the lowest-HDI countries experienced substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain than those in the highest-HDI countries.Risk difference 30.6 percentage points (95% CI 26.9–34.3)

“we found that individuals in the lowest HDI countries experienced a substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain than those in the highest (risk difference: 30.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 26.9-34.3)), with low back pain approaching twice the prevalence at the oldest ages.”
Claim 4 of 6Not coveredThe article cautions that most datasets were cross-sectional, so the trajectories reflect differences between age groups rather than within-person change, and should be interpreted as point or period prevalence rather than persistent or chronic pain.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied abstract-level profile does not state that most datasets were cross-sectional, that trajectories should be interpreted as between-age-group rather than within-person change, or that estimates are point/period prevalence rather than persistent or chronic pain. The profile does mention pooled cross-sectional/longitudinal prevalence modeling and abstract-level limitations around self-report and heterogeneity, but the specific caveats in this claim are not verifiable from the supplied abstract evidence.

1

Study evidence

Pain prevalence varied by anatomical site, from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain.Prevalence range: ~2% (facial pain) to ~40% (back pain).

“we harmonized individual-level self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries to establish global reference trajectories of pain.”
2

Study evidence

Site-specific pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites varied widely, reported as roughly 2% for facial pain up to 40% for back pain.≈2% to 40%

“Pain prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, was consistently higher in women across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range: 1.08-1.83) and increased most steeply before age 55 years.”
Claim 5 of 6SupportedA large global study analyzed self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries and territories, and found that pain in most common anatomical sites increases most sharply before age 55 and is consistently higher among women.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated6.1 million participants; 118 countries; 11 anatomical sites

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the dataset size and scope: 6,125,459 participants, 902 population-based sources, 118 countries, and 11 anatomical sites. It also supports the main descriptive findings that pain prevalence was consistently higher among women across all 11 sites and increased most steeply before age 55. Although this is marked as headline-prominent, the headline claim does not outrun the abstract evidence supplied.

1

Study evidence

Pain prevalence varied by anatomical site, from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain.Prevalence range: ~2% (facial pain) to ~40% (back pain).

“we harmonized individual-level self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries to establish global reference trajectories of pain.”
2

Study evidence

Site-specific pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites varied widely, reported as roughly 2% for facial pain up to 40% for back pain.≈2% to 40%

“Pain prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, was consistently higher in women across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range: 1.08-1.83) and increased most steeply before age 55 years.”
Claim 6 of 6SupportedThe story says smoking, obesity, and low household income were associated with increased pain prevalence and together accounted for about 18% of global site-specific pain burden, with the attributable proportion varying by region.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedabout 18% globally; 12.6% in sub-Saharan Africa to 27.1% in eastern Europe

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that 18.3% of global pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to smoking, obesity, and low income, with regional variation from 12.6% in sub-Saharan Africa to 27.1% in eastern Europe. The story frames these factors as associated with increased pain prevalence and reports the attributable fraction; that is broadly consistent with the paper profile, though the abstract does not provide the detailed confounding or population-attributable-fraction methods.

1

Study evidence

Globally, 18.3% of pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to three modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity and low income).18.3%

“Globally, 18.3% of pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to three modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity and low income)...”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • The paper implements the reference trajectories in an open-access benchmarking platform for positioning external datasets against global pain norms.

    The supplied story presentation does not mention the open-access benchmarking platform, even though the abstract profile lists it as a secondary contribution.

    From software/web platform implementation

5 things the story did carry across
  • The paper’s central contribution is harmonizing individual-level self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries to create global and regional age-by-sex reference trajectories across 11 anatomical sites.
  • The paper reports broad descriptive prevalence patterns: site-specific prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain; women had higher prevalence across all 11 sites; and pain prevalence increased most steeply before age 55.
  • The paper identifies HDI-related inequities in late-life pain, including substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain in lowest-HDI countries and low back pain approaching twice the prevalence at the oldest ages compared with highest-HDI settings.
  • The paper estimates the proportion of pain burden attributable to three modifiable risk factors—smoking, obesity, and low income—globally and by region.
  • For the attributable-burden analysis, the paper profile notes that attribution is limited to three selected modifiable factors and that other drivers, especially in lower-HDI settings, remain incompletely characterized.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

5

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataCreate harmonized global and regional age–sex reference trajectories (reference curves) for self-reported pain prevalence across multiple anatomical sites across the lifespan using pooled individual-level data from many population-based sources.IPD harmonization and pooled trajectory modelingExpand

In plain English

Pooled individual-level harmonization of self-reported pain from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based sources in 118 countries to derive global and regional age-by-sex reference trajectories (reference curves) of pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites; results include site-specific prevalence ranges, sex differences, age patterns, HDI-related gradients in late-life pain, attributable fractions for three modifiable risk factors, and an open-access benchmarking implementation.

Key findings

  • Pain prevalence varied by anatomical site, from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain.Prevalence range: ~2% (facial pain) to ~40% (back pain).
  • Women had consistently higher pain prevalence across all 11 anatomical sites.Risk ratio range 1.08–1.83 (women vs men across 11 sites).
“we harmonized individual-level self-reported pain data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based data sources in 118 countries to establish global reference trajectories of pain.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Pain measures were self-reported and pooled across heterogeneous population-based sources, which may affect comparability and measurement consistency.
  • Attributable fraction estimates cover only three modifiable factors (smoking, obesity, low income); other drivers—particularly in lower-HDI settings—are incompletely characterized according to the abstract.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

2secondary dataQuantify and compare pain prevalence patterns by sex, anatomical site, and age (including cross-site prevalence ranges and age-related increases).Pooled analysis of harmonized individual-level self-reported dataExpand

In plain English

Pooled descriptive analysis of harmonized individual-level self-reported pain data (6,125,459 participants from 902 population-based sources in 118 countries) estimating site-specific prevalence, sex contrasts, and age trajectories. Reported site prevalence ranged from roughly 2% (facial pain) to 40% (back pain); women had higher prevalence across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range 1.08–1.83); pain prevalence increased most steeply prior to age 55 years.

Key findings

  • Site-specific pain prevalence across 11 anatomical sites varied widely, reported as roughly 2% for facial pain up to 40% for back pain.≈2% to 40%
  • Women had higher prevalence than men across all 11 anatomical sites, with reported risk ratios ranging from 1.08 to 1.83.Risk ratio 1.08–1.83
“Pain prevalence ranged from roughly 2% for facial pain to 40% for back pain, was consistently higher in women across all 11 anatomical sites (risk ratio range: 1.08-1.83) and increased most steeply before age 55 years.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract does not provide full site-by-age stratified prevalence tables, individual-site risk ratios with uncertainty, or the specific harmonization/standardization procedures used.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

3secondary dataAssess global inequities in late-life pain prevalence by country/region development level (e.g., HDI strata), contrasting with prior expectations.Stratified pooled prevalence analysis by HDI (secondary data analysis)Expand

In plain English

Using a harmonized pooled dataset of self-reported pain from 6,125,459 participants in 118 countries, the study reports that individuals in the lowest-HDI countries had a substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain than those in the highest-HDI countries (risk difference 30.6 percentage points, 95% CI 26.9–34.3), and that low back pain prevalence at the oldest ages was approaching twice that of the highest-HDI settings.

Key findings

  • Individuals in the lowest-HDI countries experienced substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain than those in the highest-HDI countries.Risk difference 30.6 percentage points (95% CI 26.9–34.3)
  • Low back pain prevalence at the oldest ages in lowest-HDI countries approached roughly twice the prevalence observed in highest-HDI countries.Approaching 2-fold higher prevalence at the oldest ages (as reported in abstract)
“we found that individuals in the lowest HDI countries experienced a substantially higher late-life prevalence of any bodily pain than those in the highest (risk difference: 30.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 26.9-34.3)), with low back pain approaching twice the prevalence at the oldest ages.”
What this piece can’t prove

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

4secondary dataEstimate the proportion of pain burden attributable to selected modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity, low income) globally and by region (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa vs eastern Europe).secondary data; PAF/attributable burden estimationExpand

In plain English

Using harmonized individual-level self-reported data from 6,125,459 participants across 902 population-based sources in 118 countries, the authors estimated that 18.3% of pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to three modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity, and low income), with regional attributable fractions ranging from 12.6% in sub-Saharan Africa to 27.1% in eastern Europe.

Key findings

  • Globally, 18.3% of pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to three modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity and low income).18.3%
  • Regional attributable fractions varied, from 12.6% in sub-Saharan Africa to 27.1% in eastern Europe.12.6%–27.1%
“Globally, 18.3% of pain burden across anatomical sites was attributable to three modifiable risk factors (smoking, obesity and low income)...”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Attribution is restricted to three selected modifiable risk factors; other relevant risk factors are not included in these estimates.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

5otherImplement the reference trajectories as an open-access benchmarking platform that allows external datasets to be positioned against global pain norms.software/web platform implementationExpand

In plain English

The authors implemented the derived global pain reference trajectories in an open-access benchmarking platform intended to position external datasets against global pain norms.

Key findings

  • The derived global pain reference trajectories were implemented in an open-access benchmarking platform for positioning external datasets against global pain norms.
“We implemented these trajectories in an open-access benchmarking platform for positioning external datasets against global pain norms.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • The abstract mentions the existence of an open-access benchmarking platform but does not provide details on accessibility (URL), licensing, or how to access/use the platform.
  • The abstract does not report validation, benchmarking performance, or user documentation for the platform.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Crossref, Europe PMC · 15 candidate papers

Candidate

Musculoskeletal Pain in Unsupervised Gym-Goers: Prevalence and Anatomical Distribution

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · 2026 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.