Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

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

Epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain: The UK primary care perspective

Hall, Gillian C., Carroll, Dawn, Parry, David, McQuay, Henry J.·2006·Pain

Abstract

The true incidence of neuropathic pain is unknown, but it is believed to be under-diagnosed and treated inadequately, despite the availability of drugs with proven efficacy. Our objective was to report the epidemiology and drug treatment of neuropathic pain as managed by UK primary care physicians. A descriptive analysis of the epidemiology of incident post-herpetic neuralgia (n=12,386); trigeminal neuralgia (8268); phantom limb pain (451) and painful diabetic neuropathy (4719) and prescription treatment at diagnosis from computerised UK general practice records (GPRD): January 1992 to April 2002. Incidences per 100,000 person years observation of 40 (95% CI 39-41) for post-herpetic neuralgia, 27 (26-27) for trigeminal neuralgia, 1 (1-2) for phantom limb pain and 15 (15-16) for painful diabetic neuropathy are reported, with rates decreasing over time for phantom limb pain and post-herpetic neuralgia and increasing for painful diabetic neuropathy. Drugs were initiated at first diagnosis record for 46-66% of conditions, usually one item, with antidepressants included in 30% of prescriptions, anticonvulsants in 20% and opioid analgesics in 20%. The most commonly prescribed items were the same across conditions; amitriptyline, carbamazepine, coproxamol, codydramol and codeine+paracetamol. Carbamazepine was prescribed to 58% of the trigeminal neuralgia cohort. In 2600 patients followed to stable therapy, there was a median of one to two drug changes. We provide the primary care managed incidence of four neuropathic pain conditions. For commonly prescribed treatments, changes in therapy are less frequent when initial therapy was with antidepressants or anticonvulsants rather than conventional analgesics.

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 · 10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.030

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Hall, G. C., Carroll, D., Parry, D., & McQuay, H. J.
Venue
Pain
Published
2006-05
Volume
122
Issue
1
Pages
156-162
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084085285
Cited by
379
References
3
FWCI
11.57
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: Epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain: The UK primary care perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.030
The paper
Hall, G. C., Carroll, D., Parry, D., & McQuay, H. J. (2006). Epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain: The UK primary care perspective. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.030

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.