Béraud, Bastien LéoBastien LéoBéraudMeichtry, André AntonAndré AntonMeichtryHanusch, KayKayHanuschHilfiker, RogerRogerHilfiker2026-01-212026-01-212025-03https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.1285110.1016/j.jpain.2024.104738https://arbor.bfh.ch/handle/arbor/46527Errors in language are common in pain medicine, but the extent of such errors has not been systematically measured. This pre-registered umbrella review explored Embase, PubMed, Medline and CINAHL and seeks to quantify the prevalence of errors in language in review articles since the last IASP definition revision. To be eligible, studies must have met the following criteria: 1) Primary aim was stated as to provide neurophysiological explanations of nociception and/or pain in humans in context of a pathology/condition; 2) Any type of review article; 3) Written in English; 4) Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: 5) Published prior to the last revision of the IASP definition; 6) Published after May 2023; 7) Published in a predatory journal. Out of 5470 articles screened, 48 review articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles contained at least one error in language, there were no differences in the proportions of errors in language in review articles between years of publication, and various predictors were mostly not associated with a higher or lower number of errors in language counts in articles. Our findings reveal the need for heightened awareness among researchers, clinicians, journals and editorial boards regarding the prevalence and impact of these errors. Given our findings and their limitations, further research should focus on examining the contextual influence of misnomer usage and replication of these results.enErrors in languageNociceptionPainTerminologyUmbrella reviewarticle