Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gabapentin for the Symptomatic Treatment of Painful Neuropathy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Backonja, Miroslav·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Pain is the most disturbing symptom of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. As many as 45% of patients with diabetes mellitus develop peripheral neuropathies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of gabapentin monotherapy on pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial conducted between July 1996 and March 1997. SETTING: Outpatient clinics at 20 sites. PATIENTS: The 165 patients enrolled had a 1- to 5-year history of pain attributed to diabetic neuropathy and a minimum 40-mm pain score on the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire visual analogue scale. INTERVENTION: Gabapentin (titrated from 900 to 3600 mg/d or maximum tolerated dosage) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy measure was daily pain severity as measured on an 11-point Likert scale (0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain). Secondary measures included sleep interference scores, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores, Patient Global Impression of Change and Clinical Global Impression of Change, the Short Form-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire scores, and the Profile of Mood States results. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients received gabapentin and 70 (83%) completed the study; 81 received placebo and 65 (80%) completed the study. By intent-to-treat analysis, gabapentin-treated patients' mean daily pain score at the study end point (baseline, 6.4; end point, 3.9; n = 82) was significantly lower (P<.001) compared with the placebo-treated patients' end-point score (baseline, 6.5; end point, 5.1; n = 80). All secondary outcome measures of pain were significantly better in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group. Additional statistically significant differences favoring gabapentin treatment were observed in measures of quality of life (Short Form-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire and Profile of Mood States). Adverse events experienced significantly more frequently in the gabapentin group were dizziness (20 [24%] in the gabapentin group vs 4 [4.9%] in the control group; P<.001) and somnolence (19 [23%] in the gabapentin group vs 5 [6%] in the control group; P = .003). Confusion was also more frequent in the gabapentin group (7 [8%] vs 1 [1.2%]; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin monotherapy appears to be efficacious for the treatment of pain and sleep interference associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and exhibits positive effects on mood and quality of life.

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/jama.280.21.1831

Cites

3 of 3 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 1,533

Metadata

Authors
Backonja, M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-12-02
Volume
280
Issue
21
Pages
1831
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2014670473
Cited by
1,533
References
3
FWCI
35.53
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: Gabapentin for the Symptomatic Treatment of Painful Neuropathy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.280.21.1831
The paper
Backonja, M. (1998). Gabapentin for the Symptomatic Treatment of Painful Neuropathy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.21.1831

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.