The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical review of controlled clinical trials for peripheral neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndromes
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to identify and analyze the controlled clinical trial data for peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) and complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS). A total of 72 articles were found, which included 92 controlled drug trials using 48 different treatments. The methods of these studies were critically reviewed and the results summarized and compared. The PNP trial literature gave consistent support (two or more trials) for the analgesic effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, intravenous and topical lidocaine, intravenous ketamine, carbamazepine and topical aspirin. There was limited support (one trial) for the analgesic effectiveness of oral, topical and epidural clonidine and for subcutaneous ketamine. The trial data were contradictory for mexiletine, phenytoin, topical capsaicin, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and intravenous morphine. Analysis of the trial methods indicated that mexiletine and intravenous morphine were probably effective analgesics for PNP, while non-steroidals were probably ineffective. Codeine, magnesium chloride, propranolol, lorazepam, and intravenous phentolamine all failed to provide analgesia in single trials. There were no long-term data supporting the analgesic effectiveness of any drug and the etiology of the neuropathy did not predict treatment outcome. Review of the controlled trial literature for CRPS identified several potential problems with current clinical practices. The trial data only gave consistent support for analgesia with corticosteroids, which had long-term effectiveness. There was limited support for the analgesic effectiveness of topical dimethylsulfoxyde (DMSO), epidural clonidine and intravenous regional blocks (IVRBs) with bretylium and ketanserin. The trial data were contradictory for intranasal calcitonin and intravenous phentolamine and analysis of the trial methods indicated that both treatments were probably ineffective for most patients. There were consistent trial data indicating that guanethidine and reserpine IVRBs were ineffective, and limited trial data indicating that droperidol and atropine IVRBs were ineffective. No placebo controlled data were available to evaluated sympathetic ganglion blocks (SGBs) with local anesthetics, surgical sympathectomy, or physical therapy. Only the capsaicin trials presented data which allowed for meta-analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrated a significant capsaicin effect with a pooled odds ratio of 2.35 (95% confidence intervals 1.48, 3.22). The methods scores were higher (P<0.01) for the PNP trials (66.2±1.5, n=66) than the CRPS trials (57.6±2.9, n=26). The CRPS trials tended to use less subjects and were less likely to use placebo controls, double-blinding, or perform statistical tests for differences in outcome measures between groups. There was almost no overlap in the controlled trial literature between treatments for PNP and CRPS, and treatments used in both conditions (intravenous phentolamine and epidural clonidine) had similar results.
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
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Cited by
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
The induction of pain: an integrative review
Millan, M. J. (1999) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(98)00048-3 · Cited by 1,774
Backonja, M. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.21.1831 · Cited by 1,533
Cannabinoid-based drugs as anti-inflammatory therapeutics
Klein, T. W. (2005) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri1602 · Cited by 728
Santos, N. C., Figueira-Coelho, J., Martins-Silva, J., & Saldanha, C. (2003) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0006-2952(03)00002-9 · Cited by 648
Metadata
- Authors
- Kingery, W. S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-139
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060880376
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 35.96
- 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: A critical review of controlled clinical trials for peripheral neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndromes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00049-3
- The paper
- Kingery, W. S. (1997). A critical review of controlled clinical trials for peripheral neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndromes. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00049-3
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.