The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lidocaine patch: double-blind controlled study of a new treatment method for post-herpetic neuralgia
Abstract
Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common and often intractable neuropathic pain syndrome predominantly affecting the elderly. Topical local anesthetics have shown promise in both uncontrolled and controlled studies. Thirty-five subjects with established PHN affecting the torso or extremities completed a four-session, random order, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study of the analgesic effects of topically applied 5% lidocaine in the form of a non-woven polyethylene adhesive patch. All subjects had allodynia on examination. Up to 3 patches, covering a maximum of 420 cm2, were applied to cover the area of greatest pain as fully as possible. Lidocaine containing patches were applied in two of the four 12-h-long sessions, in one session vehicle patches were applied, and one session was a no-treatment observation session. Lidocaine containing patches significantly reduced pain intensity at all time points 30 min to 12 h compared to no-treatment observation, and at all time points 4--12 h compared to vehicle patches. Lidocaine patches were superior to both no-treatment observation and vehicle patches in averaged category pain relief scores. The highest blood lidocaine level measured was 0.1 micrograms/ml, indicating minimal systemic absorption of lidocaine. Patch application was without systemic side effect and well tolerated when applied on allodynic skin for 12 h. This study demonstrates that topical 5% lidocaine in patch form is easy to use and relieves post-herpetic neuralgia.
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
Cited by
Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: Evidence-based recommendations
Dworkin, R. H., O’Connor, A. B., Backonja, M., Farrar, J. T., Finnerup, N. B., Jensen, T. S., Kalso, E. A., Loeser, J. D., Miaskowski, C., Nurmikko, T. J., et al. (2007) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.033 · Cited by 2,126
Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions
Hróbjartsson, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003974.pub3 · Cited by 777
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 4th Edition
Harden, R. N., Oaklander, A. L., Burton, A. W., Perez, R. S. G. M., Richardson, K., Swan, M., Barthel, J., Costa, B., Graciosa, J. R., & Bruehl, S. (2013) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/pme.12033 · Cited by 534
A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia
Vase, L., Riley, J. L., & Price, D. D. (2002) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00205-1 · Cited by 434
Topical Amitriptyline Versus Lidocaine in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain
Ho, K.-Y., Huh, B. K., White, W. D., Yeh, C.-C., & Miller, E. J. (2008) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e318156db26 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Rowbotham, M. C., Davies, P. S., Verkempinck, C., & Galer, B. S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-44
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971005199
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.24
- 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: Lidocaine patch: double-blind controlled study of a new treatment method for post-herpetic neuralgia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00146-8
- The paper
- Rowbotham, M. C., Davies, P. S., Verkempinck, C., & Galer, B. S. (1996). Lidocaine patch: double-blind controlled study of a new treatment method for post-herpetic neuralgia. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00146-8
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.