The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gabapentin in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study
Abstract
A multicentre double blind, randomised, placebo controlled 7-week study evaluated the efficacy and safety of gabapentin 1800 or 2400 mg/day in treating postherpetic neuralgia. Three hundred and thirty-four men and women aged at least 18 years (mean 73) received gabapentin 1800 or 2400 mg daily or placebo in three divided doses with a forced titration schedule. The primary outcome measure was change in average daily pain diary score (baseline week v final week). Secondary outcomes included mean weekly sleep interference score; Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); Clinician and Patient Global Impression of Change (CGIC/PGIC); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). From week 1, pain scores showed a significantly greater improvement with gabapentin: the final difference v baseline was -34.5% for the 1800 mg dose, -34.4% for the 2400 mg dose compared with -15.7% for the placebo group. The difference vs. placebo was 18.8% for the 1800 mg dose (95% confidence interval 10.9-26.8%; P<0.01) and 18.7% for the 2400 mg dose (10.7-26.7%; P<0.01). Sleep interference diaries showed a similar pattern. There were significant differences in favour of gabapentin for number of patients reporting >50% reduction in their pain intensity, in the CGIC and PGIC, in the sensory and total scores of the SF-MPQ (both doses), in the visual analogue scale of pain of the SF-MPQ (2400 mg only) and in the vitality, bodily pain and mental health domains of the SF-36. Overall gabapentin was well tolerated. The most common adverse events were dizziness and somnolence, particularly during the titration phase. Thus, this study confirms the role of gabapentin as an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for postherpetic 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
EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision
Attal, N., Cruccu, G., Baron, R., Haanpää, M., Hansson, P., Jensen, T. S., & Nurmikko, T. (2010) · European Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02999.x · Cited by 1,873
Recommendations for the management of herpes zoster
Dworkin, R. H., Johnson, R. W., Breuer, J., Gnann, J. W., Levin, M. J., Backonja, M., Betts, R. F., Gershon, A. A., Haanpää, M. L., McKendrick, M. W., et al. (2007) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/510206 · Cited by 869
Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults
Wiffen, P. J., Derry, S., Bell, R. F., Rice, A. S., Tölle, T. R., Phillips, T., & Moore, R. A. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007938.pub4 · Cited by 561
Self-citationSabatowski, R., Gálvez, R., Cherry, D. A., Jacquot, F., Vincent, E., Maisonobe, P., & Versavel, M. (2004) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.01.001 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Rice, A. S. C., & Maton, S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 215-224
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057983296
- Cited by
- 596
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.01
- 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 in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00407-9
- The paper
- Rice, A. S. C., & Maton, S. (2001). Gabapentin in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00407-9
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.