The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opioids for neuropathic pain
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2006, which included 23 trials. The use of opioids for neuropathic pain remains controversial. Studies have been small, have yielded equivocal results, and have not established the long-term profile of benefits and risks for people with neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: To reassess the efficacy and safety of opioid agonists for the treatment of neuropathic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 24th October 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 24th October 2012 ), and EMBASE (1980 to 24th October 2012) for articles in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which opioid agonists were given to treat central or peripheral neuropathic pain of any etiology. Pain was assessed using validated instruments, and adverse events were reported. We excluded studies in which drugs other than opioid agonists were combined with opioids or opioids were administered epidurally or intrathecally. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one trials met our inclusion criteria, studying 10 different opioids: 23 studies from the original 2006 review and eight additional studies from this updated review.Seventeen studies (392 participants with neuropathic pain, average 22 participants per study) provided efficacy data for acute exposure to opioids over less than 24 hours. Sixteen reported pain outcomes, with contradictory results; 8/16 reported less pain with opioids than placebo, 2/16 reported that some but not all participants benefited, 5/16 reported no difference, and 1/16 reported equivocal results. Six studies with about 170 participants indicated that mean pain scores with opioid were about 15/100 points less than placebo.Fourteen studies (845 participants, average 60 participants per study) were of intermediate duration lasting 12 weeks or less; most studies lasted less than six weeks. Most studies used imputation methods for participant withdrawal known to be associated with considerable bias; none used a method known not to be associated with bias. The evidence, therefore, derives from studies predominantly with features likely to overestimate treatment effects, i.e. small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. All demonstrated opioid efficacy for spontaneous neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis demonstrated at least 33% pain relief in 57% of participants receiving an opioid versus 34% of those receiving placebo. The overall point estimate of risk difference was 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.37, P < 0.0001), translating to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4.0 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.7). When the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief was analyzed, the overall point estimate of risk difference between opioids (47%) and placebo (30%) was 0.17 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.33, P = 0.03), translating to an NNTB of 5.9 (3.0 to 50.0). In the updated review, opioids did not demonstrate improvement in many aspects of emotional or physical functioning, as measured by various validated questionnaires. Constipation was the most common adverse event (34% opioid versus 9% placebo: number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.0; 95% CI 3.0 to 5.6), followed by drowsiness (29% opioid versus 14% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 4.0 to 33.3), nausea (27% opioid versus 9% placebo: NNTH 6.3; 95% CI 4.0 to 12.5), dizziness (22% opioid versus 8% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 5.6 to 10.0), and vomiting (12% opioid versus 4% placebo: NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 6.7 to 100.0). More participants withdrew from opioid treatment due to adverse events (13%) than from placebo (4%) (NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 8.3 to 25.0). Conversely, more participants receiving placebo withdrew due to lack of efficacy (12%) versus (2%) receiving opioids (NNTH -11.1; 95% CI -20.0 to -8.3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, new studies were found providing additional information. Data were reanalyzed but the results did not alter any of our previously published conclusions. Short-term studies provide only equivocal evidence regarding the efficacy of opioids in reducing the intensity of neuropathic pain. Intermediate-term studies demonstrated significant efficacy of opioids over placebo, but these results are likely to be subject to significant bias because of small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. Analgesic efficacy of opioids in chronic neuropathic pain is subject to considerable uncertainty. Reported adverse events of opioids were common but not life-threatening. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish unbiased estimates of long-term
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Zhang, Q., Wang, C., Zheng, M., Li, Y., Li, J., Zhang, L., Shang, X., & Yan, C. (2015) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000369778 · Cited by 11,533
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment
Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R., & Gallacher, D. (2006) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009 · Cited by 5,486
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Tarsilla, M. (2010) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v6i14.284 · Cited by 5,178
Dong, Y., Hao, L., Shi, Z., Wang, G., Zhang, Z., & Han, C. (2013) · Urologia Internationalis · doi:10.1159/000351405 · Cited by 4,540
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Kerns, R. D., Ader, D. N., et al. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 · Cited by 3,471
Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cited by 2,782
Cited by
Pharmacological Management of Persistent Pain in Older Persons
(2009) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00699.x · Cited by 916
Pergolizzi, J., Böger, R. H., Budd, K., Dahan, A., Erdine, S., Hans, G., Kress, H., Langford, R., Likar, R., Raffa, R. B., et al. (2008) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2008.00204.x · Cited by 854
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Pharmacotherapy
Iqbal, Z., Azmi, S., Yadav, R., Ferdousi, M., Kumar, M., Cuthbertson, D. J., Lim, J., Malik, R. A., & Alam, U. (2018) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.04.001 · Cited by 487
Mechanism-based treatment for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathic pain
Sisignano, M., Baron, R., Scholich, K., & Geisslinger, G. (2014) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2014.211 · Cited by 344
Identification of spinal circuits involved in touch-evoked dynamic mechanical pain
Cheng, L., Duan, B., Huang, T., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Britz, O., Garcia-Campmany, L., Ren, X., Vong, L., Lowell, B. B., et al. (2017) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4549 · Cited by 240
Metadata
- Authors
- McNicol, E. D., Midbari, A., & Eisenberg, E.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-08-29
- Volume
- 2019
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- CD006146-CD006146
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1546041226
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 101
- FWCI
- 50.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Opioids for neuropathic pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd006146.pub2
- The paper
- McNicol, E. D., Midbari, A., & Eisenberg, E. (2013). Opioids for neuropathic pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006146.pub2
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.