Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 445

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Double-blind Study Comparing the Efficacy of Gabapentin With Amitriptyline on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Pain

Morello, Candis M., Leckband, Susan G., Stoner, Carol P., Moorhouse, David F., Sahagian, Gregory A.·1999·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reports of gabapentin use in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain stimulate a need for controlled trials to determine its comparative efficacy to the therapeutic standard of amitriptyline hydrochloride. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of gabapentin compared with amitriptyline in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study. SETTING: Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, Ambulatory Care Clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty-eight veterans were referred by their primary care providers. Two patients withdrew before randomization because of no neuropathic pain after washout; a third withdrew for unexpected surgery that required analgesics. Three patients withdrew because of adverse effects and 1 for protocol violation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with stable glycemic control and neuropathic pain randomized to 6 weeks of therapy with gabapentin, 900 to 1800 mg/d, or amitriptyline hydrochloride, 25 to 75 mg/d, with a 1-week washout before crossover. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief measured by pain scale with verbal descriptors and global pain score assessment at treatment end. RESULTS: Participants and investigators were blinded throughout. Mean dosages were of gabapentin, 1565 mg/d, and of amitriptyline hydrochloride, 59 mg/d. Sixty-five percent of patients reached maximum dose with gabapentin and 54% with amitriptyline. Mean score diary analysis showed pain relief with gabapentin and amitriptyline was not significantly different (P = .26). Global data were obtained from 21 of 25 enrolled patients who completed the study. Moderate or greater pain relief was experienced in 11 (52%) of 21 patients with gabapentin and 14 (67%) of 21 patients with amitriptyline. There were no significant period or carry-over effects (P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: Although both drugs provide pain relief, mean pain score and global pain score data indicate no significant difference between gabapentin and amitriptyline. Gabapentin may be an alternative for treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, yet does not appear to offer considerable advantage over amitriptyline and is more expensive. Larger trials are necessary to define gabapentin's place in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.159.16.1931

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 445

Metadata

Authors
Morello, C. M., Leckband, S. G., Stoner, C. P., Moorhouse, D. F., & Sahagian, G. A.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
1999-09-13
Volume
159
Issue
16
Pages
1931
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036949225
Cited by
445
References
2
FWCI
10.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Double-blind Study Comparing the Efficacy of Gabapentin With Amitriptyline on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.159.16.1931
The paper
Morello, C. M., Leckband, S. G., Stoner, C. P., Moorhouse, D. F., & Sahagian, G. A. (1999). Randomized Double-blind Study Comparing the Efficacy of Gabapentin With Amitriptyline on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Pain. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.159.16.1931

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.