The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 45 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method.Findings 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only.Interpretation Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies.Funding NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
44 Own result · 24 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 3 Own method · 1 Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies published in peer-review journals reported greater effects than online studies (R2=9·3%, p<0·01).”
- Also stated in: § Risk of bias across studies · plain
“Using meta-regression, we identified that studies published in peer-review journals reported greater treatment effects (OR=2·2, 95% CI 1·5–3·0, n=153; adjusted R2=9·3%, p<0·01) than studies identified via online repositories (OR=1·4, 1·0–1·9, n=17).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plaincorrelationaln = 153 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Risk of bias across studies · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“6·3 (95 % CI 5·0–8·3) for gabapentin”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
“Combined NNT was 6·3 (5·0–8·3) for gabapentin and 8·3 (6·2–13) for gabapentin ER/enacarbil.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total 229 studies were included.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data for cannabinoids, tapentadol, drug combinations, and several other antiepileptics, antidepressants and topical drugs were inconclusive.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“7·7 (95 % CI 6·5–9·4) for pregabalin”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
“Combined NNT was 7·7 (6·5–9·4) and NNH was 13·9 (11·6–17·4).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“NNTs were 3·6 (95 % CI 3·0–4·4) for tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs)”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
“Combined NNT (15 studies) was 3·6 (3·0–4·4) and NNH was 13·4 (9·3–24·4).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trial outcomes were generally modest even for effective drugs”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Results of quantitative data for individual drugs, showing NNT for 50 % pain relief ranging from around 4 to 10 across most positive trials, emphasizes the overall modest study outcomes in neuropathic pain.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“6·4 (95 % CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin- noradrenaline reuptake inbibitor (SNRI) antidepressants duloxetine and venlafaxine”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
“Combined NNT was 6·4 (5·2–8·4) and NNH was 11·8 (9·5–15·2).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects.”
- Also stated in: § Risk of bias across studies · hedged
“This suggests a 10% relative overstatement of treatment effects.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Risk of bias across studies · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Final quality of evidence was lower for lidocaine patches and BTX-A.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
- It may state two separate claims as one. 37
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The systematic review of the literature compiled with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements.22”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Procedures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med source
The PRISMA Statement section identifies PRISMA as a 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram for reporting systematic reviews. The citation identifies the reporting standard the citing authors say they followed; it does not serve as an independent audit of their review. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tolerability/safety and values/preferences were high for lidocaine patches and lower for opioids and TCAs.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifty-five percent of the trials were conducted in diabetic painful polyneuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Study selection and characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we found that high-concentration capsaicin patches were the most susceptible to publication bias, ie, a new study with less than 400 participants with no effect may increase the NNT to an unacceptable level.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 13 trials of strong opioids using mainly oxycodone (10–120 mg/day) and morphine (90–240mg/day) in peripheral neuropathic pain. The final quality of evidence was moderate. Ten trials were positive: combined NNT was 4·3 (3·4–5·8) and NNH was 11·7 (8·4–19·3).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trim and fill method suggested 34 theoretical missing studies (figure 3c) and adjusted our effect size from an OR of 1·8 (95% CI 1·7–1·9) to 1·6 (95% CI 1·5–1·7).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Risk of bias across studies
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was lower (average 3–4) for older studies of TCAs and capsaicin and higher (average >4) for more recent studies (pregabalin, gabapentin, SNRIs, opioids, capsaicin high-concentration patches).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Risk of bias in individual trials
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Long-term controlled studies were lacking and few lasted longer than 12 weeks, with the longest lasting 24 weeks.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Topiramate, zonisamide, and oxcarbazepine/carbamazepine had the poorest safety profile, with combined NNH of 6·3 (5·1–8·0), 2·0 (1·3–4·6), and 5·5 (4·3–7·9), respectively.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 14 RCTs of gabapentin (900–3600 mg/day) (nine positive) and 6 RCTs of gabapentin ER or gabapentin enacarbil (1200–3600 mg/day) (four positive).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified one negative study and one positive enrichment study of tapentadol ER: the latter had potential bias (probable unblinding of the patients enrolled in the double blind period) and high NNT (in 67 % of the patients responding to the open phase).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no evidence for a dose-response effect.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 18 out of 25 placebo-controlled RCTs of pregabalin (150–600 mg/day) were positive, with high final quality of evidence.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All seven studies of tramadol (mainly tramadol ER up to 400 mg daily) were positive, with moderate final quality of evidence. Combined NNT was 4·7 (3·6–6·7), with the highest NNT (6·4) in the largest study. Combined NNH was 12·6 (8·4–25·3).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Five out of seven studies (in postherpetic neuralgia or HIV-related painful polyneuropathy) reported sustained efficacy of a single application of high-concentration capsaicin patch (8%)”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
“The final quality of evidence was high. Combined NNT was 10·6 (7·4–19).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 165 published or unpublished trials with dichotomous data were analysed for publication bias.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Risk of bias across studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we identified only one small negative study of 5% lidocaine patches in postsurgical neuropathic pain and two enriched enrolment studies in postherpetic neuralgia. The smaller study (32 patients) was positive, the larger study (263 patients) was negative in the ITT population, but positive in the per protocol population.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Six RCTs evaluated the efficacy of a single administration of BTX-A (50–200 units subcutaneously in the painful area) in peripheral neuropathic pain. The smaller studies had a positive primary outcome (NNT of 1·9 (1·5–2·4) for four studies) with a very low placebo effect, but one large unpublished study was negative.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Safety was good (NNH 25·6 (15·3–78·6) for gabapentin and 31·9 (17·1–230) for gabapentin ER).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few relevant trials appeared since our meta-analysis, but none affected the recommendations (appendix 11).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results of quantitative data for individual drugs, showing NNT for 50 % pain relief ranging from around 4 to 10 across most positive trials, emphasizes the overall modest study outcomes in neuropathic pain.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of seven RCTs of various combination therapy in neuropathic pain (appendices 4 and 6), two found that gabapentin combined to morphine or to nortriptyline was superior to monotherapy (and to placebo in one study) at reduced dosages and with no more side effects.”
- Also stated in: § Combination therapy · plain
“However the largest study (not placebo controlled) showed no difference in efficacy or side effects between pregabalin combined to duloxetine at moderate dosages (300 mg pregabalin, 60 mg duloxetine daily) and monotherapy at high dosages (600 mg pregabalin, 120 mg duloxetine daily) in patients not responsive to monotherapy at moderate dosages.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Combination therapy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Combination therapy · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maximum effectiveness seemed associated with 180 mg morphine or equivalent (no additional benefit for higher doses).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Quantitative data for individual drugs or drug classes
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited efficacy, large placebo responses, inadequate diagnostic criteria and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for modest trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Abstract > Interpretation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Adequate diagnostic criteria for neuropathic pain are lacking.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used a standardized review and data extraction protocol (unpublished, appendices 2 and 3).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The GRADE classification was used to assess recommendations based on a group of RCTs pertaining to the same drug or drug class when relevant (ie TCAs)17,18 with final quality of evidence rated as strong or weak for the treatment, against the treatment, or inconclusive”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Evidence summary and reporting
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the five-point Oxford Quality Scale25 by two independent authors (appendix 1).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Procedures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Jadad, 1996, Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?, Control Clin Trials source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Here, a minimum score of 2 out of 5 (randomised and double-blind study) was required for inclusion.25”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Procedures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Jadad, 1996, Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?, Control Clin Trials source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was introduced in 200017,18 and has received widespread international acceptance.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also assessed serious risk of bias relating to lack of allocation concealment, incomplete accounting of outcome events, selective outcome reporting, stopping early for benefit, use of invalidated outcome measures and carryover effects in crossover trials.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An assessment of publication bias was performed using funnel plots,26 Egger’s regression,27 and Duval and Tweedie’s non-parametric trim and fill approach.28”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Statistics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Light, 1984
- Not checked yetcites [27] Egger, 1997, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Duval, 2000, Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis, Biometrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extent to which the observed variability (heterogeneity) in treatment effects is explained by publication in a peer-reviewed journal was assessed using meta-regression.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Statistics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, we estimated the susceptibility to bias for individual drug classes.29,30”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Methods > Statistics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Moore, 2008, Managing potential publication bias
- Not checked yetcites [30] Moore, 2011, Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This may be due to lack of diagnostic accuracy and relatively ineffective drugs, but also insufficient knowledge about effective drugs and their appropriate use in clinical practice.8”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Martinez, 2014, Adherence of French GPs to Chronic Neuropathic Pain Clinical Guidelines: Results of a Cross-Sectional, Randomized, “e” Case-Vignette Survey, PLoS One source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, they may not be applicable for trigeminal neuralgia, for which we could extract only one study complying with our inclusion criteria.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This may be due to large placebo responses in HIV-related neuropathy trials,45 a distinct clinical phenotype in subgroups of patients with radiculopathy,46 or psychological/psychosocial comorbidites, often neglected in large trials.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, none of the studies assessed pediatric neuropathic pain, and the present guidelines therefore only apply to adults.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Publication bias may be present if studies with positive results are published while those with no data or negative results are not.29 It may lead to major overestimation of efficacy in therapeutic studies.47”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Moore, 2008, Managing potential publication bias
- Not checked yetcites [47] Thornton, 2000, Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences, J Clin Epidemiol source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly these recommendations do not apply to acute pain or acute pain exacerbation.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Side effects may, however, to some degree depend on the aetiology, eg, drugs with CNS-related side effects may be less tolerated in patients with CNS lesions.44”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Cepeda, 2012, Placebo response changes depending on the neuropathic pain syndrome: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis, Pain Med source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was generally no evidence for efficacy of particular drugs in specific conditions. Therefore these recommendations apply to neuropathic pain in general.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few studies included cancer-related neuropathic pain; the recommendations for the use of opioids may be different in certain cancer populations.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > GRADE recommendations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inadequate response of neuropathic pain to drug therapy constitutes a highly unmet need and may have substantial consequences in terms of psychological or social adjustment.49”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Treede, 2008, Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes, Neurology source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither individual studies nor their statistical combination demonstrated significant differences in efficacy or safety between drugs. Despite limited sample sizes and unknown assay sensitivity in the lack of placebo groups, results suggest comparable efficacy across first- and most second-line recommended treatments.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Results > Comparative drug trials
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This supports the robustness of a meta-analysis taking into account unpublished trials, and suggests that effect sizes were overestimated in previous meta-analyses of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain.”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has recently been reported that the drug treatment of postherpetic neuralgia by primary care physicians was roughly consistent with the US recommendations issued some years before.6”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Dworkin, 2012, Is treatment of postherpetic neuralgia in the community consistent with evidence-based recommendations?, Pain source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One major issue is the placebo response which seems to have increased in recent trials of neuropathic pain and may lead to an underestimation of drug effects.51”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Demant, 2014, The effect of oxcarbazepine in peripheral neuropathic pain depends on pain phenotype: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phenotype-stratified study, Pain source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We provide a weak recommendation against the use of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain, mainly because of negative results, potential misuse, abuse, diversion and long term mental health risks particularly in susceptible individuals.66–71”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66] Di, 2009, High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis, Br J Psychiatry source
- Not checked yetcites [67] Kuepper, 2011, Continued cannabis use and risk of incidence and persistence of psychotic symptoms: 10 year follow-up cohort study, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [68] Hall, 2011, Cannabis and the increased incidence and persistence of psychosis, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [69] Davis, 2013, Association between cannabis use, psychosis, and schizotypal personality disorder: findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, Schizophr Res source
- Not checked yetcites [70] Gilman, 2014, Cannabis use is quantitatively associated with nucleus accumbens and amygdala abnormalities in young adult recreational users, J Neurosci source
- Not checked yetcites [71]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The use of diagnostic algorithms for neuropathic pain53 and screening tools54 should contribute to reducing diagnostic heterogeneity (Table 4).”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] Bouhassira, 2014, Neuropathic pain phenotyping as a predictor of treatment response in painful diabetic neuropathy: Data from the randomized, double-blind, COMBO-DN study, Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Farrar, 2014, Effect of variability in the 7-day baseline pain diary on the assay sensitivity of neuropathic pain randomized clinical trials: an ACTTION study, Pain source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Adequate diagnostic criteria for neuropathic pain are lacking.
In the paper
“Capsaicin patches are proposed as second-line for peripheral neuropathic pain because of high quality of evidence, but modest effect size, training requirements, and potential safety concerns on sensation with long-term use.65”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Semple, 2005, Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: systematic review, J Psychopharmacol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Lastly, a largely debated issue concerns the heterogeneity of patient phenotypes in clinical trials, which may reflect various underlying mechanisms.55–57”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] Dworkin, 2013, Assay sensitivity and study features in neuropathic pain trials: an ACTTION meta-analysis, Neurology source
- Not checked yetcites [56] Lund, 2014, Randomised controlled trials may underestimate drug effects: balanced placebo trial design, PLoS One source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Attal, 2011, Assessing symptom profiles in neuropathic pain clinical trials: can it improve outcome?, Eur J Pain source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Placebo response has been found to be higher in HIV-related neuropathies,45 and in patients with low or variable pain scores at inclusion.52 Conversely it seems to be lower in postherpetic neuralgia.45”
§ Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review, meta-analysis and updated NeuPSIG recommendations > Discussion
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Neuropathic pain is hard to treat.
“Neuropathic pain is difficult to treat.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Large unpublished trials that were previously hidden can now be found on clinicaltrials.gov and pharmaceutical industry websites.
“Previously hidden and unpublished large trials can now be identified on the web (clinicaltrials.gov, pharmaceutical industry websites)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Topical agents are not known to be relevant for central neuropathic pain.
“Topical agents have no known relevance for use in central neuropathic pain, and this is clearly stated in our recommendations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Adequate diagnostic criteria for neuropathic pain are lacking.
“Another issue concerns the lack of adequate diagnostic criteria for neuropathic pain (available on request for individual trials).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, medical treatment comes with many side effects [5].”
From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent reviews conclude that there is a lack of evidence for the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments [5].”
From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,762
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
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Zhang, Q., Wang, C., Zheng, M., Li, Y., Li, J., Zhang, L., Shang, X., & Yan, C. (2014) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000369778 · Cited by 11,609
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 1,007
Wu, W., Zhang, X., Wang, S., Li, T., Hao, Q., Li, S., Yao, W., & Sun, R. (2022) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2022.109206 · Cited by 69
Fallon, M., Hoskin, P., Colvin, L., Fleetwood-Walker, S. M., Adamson, D. J. A., Byrne, A., Murray, G. D., & Laird, B. J. A. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.8221 · Cited by 68
Sensory profiling in animal models of neuropathic pain: a call for back-translation
Rice, A. S. C., Finnerup, N. B., Kemp, H. I., Currie, G. L., & Baron, R. (2017) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001138 · Cited by 68
Self-citationSanna, M. D., Les, F., López, V., & Galeotti, N. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00472 · Cited by 69
Bravo‐Caparrós, I., Ruiz‐Cantero, M. C., Perazzoli, G., Cronin, S. J., Vela, J. M., Hamed, M. F., Penninger, J. M., Baeyens, J. M., Cobos, E. J., & Nieto, F. R. (2020) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.201901921r · Cited by 69
Limakatso, K., & Parker, R. (2021) · PM&R · doi:10.1002/pmrj.12556 · Cited by 67
Prevention and Management Strategies for Diabetic Neuropathy
Smith, S., Normahani, P., Lane, T. R. A., Hohenschurz‐Schmidt, D., Oliver, N. S., & Davies, A. H. (2022) · Life · doi:10.3390/life12081185 · Cited by 80
The Pharmacological Treatment of Chronic Pain: From Guidelines to Daily Clinical Practice
Marcianò, G., Vocca, C., Evangelista, M., Palleria, C., Muraca, L., Galati, C., Monea, F., Sportiello, L., Sarro, G. D., Capuano, A., et al. (2023) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics15041165 · Cited by 80
Connexin-Dependent Neuroglial Networking as a New Therapeutic Target
Charvériat, M., Naus, C. C. G., Leybaert, L., Sáez, J. C., & Giaume, C. (2017) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2017.00174 · Cited by 69
In Vitro and In Vivo Effects of Flavonoids on Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Basu, P., & Basu, A. (2020) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules25051171 · Cited by 67
Effects of miR-26a-5p on neuropathic pain development by targeting MAPK6 in in CCI rat models
Zhang, Y., Su, Z. Z., Liu, H., Lin, L., Wei, M., Ge, D., & Zhang, Z. (2018) · Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2018.08.005 · Cited by 66
Botulinum Neurotoxin for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain
Egeo, G., Fofi, L., & Barbanti, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00716 · Cited by 69
Current Strategies for the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
Staudt, M. D., Prabhala, T., Sheldon, B. L., Quaranta, N., Zakher, M., Bhullar, R. K., Pilitsis, J. G., & Argoff, C. E. (2020) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296820951829 · Cited by 73
Kocot-Kępska, M., Zajączkowska, R., Mika, J., Kopsky, D. J., Wordliczek, J., Dobrogowski, J., & Przeklasa-Muszyńska, A. (2021) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13040450 · Cited by 70
Recent advances in pain management based on nanoparticle technologies
Babaie, S., Taghvimi, A., Hong, J.-H., Hamishehkar, H., An, S., & Kim, K. H. (2022) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-022-01473-y · Cited by 68
Pain in cancer survivors; filling in the gaps
Brown, M. R. D., & Farquhar-Smith, P. W. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aex202 · Cited by 71
Why mu‐opioid agonists have less analgesic efficacy in neuropathic pain?
Martínez‐Navarro, M., Maldonado, R. J., & Baños, J.-E. (2018) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.1328 · Cited by 65
Cannabinoid Receptor Type 1 and Its Role as an Analgesic: An Opioid Alternative?
Milligan, A. L., Szabo-Pardi, T. A., & Burton, M. D. (2019) · Journal of Dual Diagnosis · doi:10.1080/15504263.2019.1668100 · Cited by 70
Role of microglia and P2X4 receptors in chronic pain
Kohno, K., & Tsuda, M. (2021) · PAIN Reports · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000864 · Cited by 66
Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations
Moisset, X. (2024) · La Presse Médicale · doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2024.104232 · Cited by 65
Cancer Pain: Where are we Now?
Magee, D. J., Bachtold, S., Brown, M. R. D., & Farquhar-Smith, P. W. (2018) · Pain Management · doi:10.2217/pmt-2018-0031 · Cited by 72
Ketamine as a therapeutic agent for depression and pain: mechanisms and evidence
Subramanian, S., Haroutounian, S., Palanca, B. J. A., & Lenze, E. J. (2022) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2022.120152 · Cited by 73
Self-citationTherapeutic Strategies for Postherpetic Neuralgia: Mechanisms, Treatments, and Perspectives
Tang, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, C., Zeng, A., & Song, L. (2023) · Current Pain and Headache Reports · doi:10.1007/s11916-023-01146-x · Cited by 64
2023 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes - a position of Diabetes Poland
Araszkiewicz, A., Bandurska-Stankiewicz, E. M., Borys, S., Budzynski, A. Z., Cyganek, K., Cypryk, K., Czech, A., Czupryniak, L., Drzewoski, J., Dzida, G. J., et al. (2023) · Current Topics in Diabetes · doi:10.5114/ctd/160061 · Cited by 72
Smith, T. J., & Saiki, C. B. (2015) · Mayo Clinic proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.08.009 · Cited by 117
Antidepressants Impact Connexin 43 Channel Functions in Astrocytes
Jeanson, T., Pondaven, A., Ezan, P., Mouthon, F., Charvériat, M., & Giaume, C. (2016) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2015.00495 · Cited by 64
S2k-Leitlinie: Diagnose und nicht interventionelle Therapie neuropathischer Schmerzen
Schlereth, T. (2019) · DGNeurologie · doi:10.1007/s42451-019-00139-8 · Cited by 65
Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Psychopharmacology
Riordan, P. A., Briscoe, J. G., Uritsky, T. J., Jones, C. A., & Webb, J. A. (2019) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2019.0106 · Cited by 63
Microglia Purinoceptor P2Y6: An Emerging Therapeutic Target in CNS Diseases
Anwar, S., Pons, V., & Rivest, S. (2020) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells9071595 · Cited by 61
The NLRP3 inflammasome: role in the pathobiology of chronic pain
Chen, C., & Smith, M. T. (2023) · Inflammopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s10787-023-01235-8 · Cited by 64
Müller-Schwefe, G. H. H., Morlion, B. J., Ahlbeck, K., Alon, E., Coaccioli, S., Coluzzi, F., Huygen, F. J. P. M., Jaksch, W., Kalso, E. A., Kocot-Kępska, M., et al. (2017) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1080/03007995.2017.1298521 · Cited by 66
Emerging therapies for neuropathic pain: new molecules or new indications for old treatments?
Bouhassira, D., & Attal, N. (2017) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001136 · Cited by 63
Self-citationSieberg, C. B., Taras, C., Gomaa, A., Nickerson, C. A., Wong, C., Ward, C., Baskozos, G., Bennett, D., Ramirez, J. D., Themistocleous, A. C., et al. (2018) · PAIN Reports · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000651 · Cited by 65
Self-citationMetformin: A Prospective Alternative for the Treatment of Chronic Pain
Baeza‐Flores, G. D. C., Guzmán‐Priego, C. G., Flores, L. I. P., Murbartián, J., Torres‐López, J. E., & Granados‐Soto, V. (2020) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.558474 · Cited by 65
The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
SLOAN, G. P., Alam, U., Selvarajah, D., & Tesfaye, S. H. (2021) · Current Diabetes Reviews · doi:10.2174/1573399817666210707112413 · Cited by 67
New Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors and Their Anesthetic and Analgesic Considerations
Fanelli, D., Weller, G. E. R., & Liu, H. (2021) · Neurology International · doi:10.3390/neurolint13040049 · Cited by 62
Pharmacologic Management of Persistent Pain in Cancer Survivors
Glare, P. A., Aubrey, K. R., Gulati, A., Lee, Y., Moryl, N., & Overton, S. (2022) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-022-01675-6 · Cited by 68
Effect of endocannabinoid degradation on pain
Cajanus, K., Holmström, E. J., Wessman, M., Anttila, V., Kaunisto, M. A., & Kalso, E. A. (2015) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000398 · Cited by 70
Haroutounian, S., Ford, A. L., Frey, K., Nikolajsen, L., Finnerup, N. B., Neiner, A., Kharasch, E. D., Karlsson, P., & Bottros, M. M. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001213 · Cited by 62
Self-citationD’Amico, R., Impellizzeri, D., Cuzzocrea, S., & Paola, R. D. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21155330 · Cited by 64
Nathan, H. J., Poulin, P., Wozny, D., Taljaard, M., Smyth, C., Gilron, I., Sorisky, A., Lochnan, H., & Shergill, Y. (2017) · Clinical Diabetes · doi:10.2337/cd17-0077 · Cited by 61
Self-citationUeberall, M. A., Essner, U., & Mueller-Schwefe, G. H. H. (2019) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s192174 · Cited by 66
Neuropathic Pain: Challenges and Opportunities
van Velzen, M., Dahan, A., & Niesters, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Pain Research · doi:10.3389/fpain.2020.00001 · Cited by 66
Selective targeting of NaV1.7 via inhibition of the CRMP2-Ubc9 interaction reduces pain in rodents
Cai, S., Moutal, A., Yu, J., Chew, L. A., Isensee, J., Chawla, R., Gómez, K., Luo, S., Zhou, Y., Chefdeville, A., et al. (2021) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abh1314 · Cited by 61
Bourguignon, L., Tong, B., Geisler, F. H., Schubert, M. J. W., Röhrich, F., Saur, M., Weidner, N., Rupp, R., Kalke, Y.-B., Abel, R. F., et al. (2022) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02395-0 · Cited by 65
Voortman, M., Fritz, D., Vogels, O. J. M., Eftimov, F., van de Beek, D., Brouwer, M. C., & Drent, M. (2017) · Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1097/mcp.0000000000000413 · Cited by 61
Yang, J., Xie, M.-X., Hu, L., Wang, X., Mai, J.-Z., Li, Y.-Y., Wu, N., Zhang, C., Li, J., Pang, R., et al. (2018) · Brain Behavior and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2018.04.016 · Cited by 61
Tapentadol for neuropathic pain: a review of clinical studies
Freo, U., Romualdi, P., & Kress, H. G. (2019) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s190162 · Cited by 61
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of neuroangiostrongyliasis: updated recommendations
Ansdell, V. E., Kramer, K. J., McMillan, J. K. P., Gosnell, W. L., Murphy, G. S., Meyer, B. C., Blalock, E., Yates, J., Lteif, L., Smith, O. A., et al. (2020) · Parasitology · doi:10.1017/s0031182020001262 · Cited by 60
Optimizing the management of chronic pain in sickle cell disease
Osunkwo, I., O’Connor, H. F., & Saah, E. N. (2020) · Hematology · doi:10.1182/hematology.2020000143 · Cited by 61
Remimazolam alleviates neuropathic pain via regulating bradykinin receptor B1 and autophagy.
Xie, H., Lu, F., Liu, W.-L., Wang, E., Wang, L., & Zhong, M.-L. (2021) · The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology · doi:10.1093/jpp/rgab080 · Cited by 40
A Targeted Approach to Post-Mastectomy Pain and Persistent Pain following Breast Cancer Treatment
Chang, P. J., Asher, A., & Smith, S. R. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13205191 · Cited by 60
Cannabinoid Therapeutics in Chronic Neuropathic Pain: From Animal Research to Human Treatment
Campos, R. M. P., Aguiar, A. F. L., Paes-Colli, Y., Trindade, P. M. P., Ferreira, B. K., Reis, R. A. D. M., & Sampaio, L. D. S. (2021) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.785176 · Cited by 59
Sainsbury, B., Bloxham, J., Pour, M. H., Padilla, M., & Enciso, R. (2021) · Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine · doi:10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.6.479 · Cited by 61
Meaadi, J., Obara, I., Eldabe, S. S., & Nazar, H. (2023) · International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · doi:10.1007/s11096-022-01528-y · Cited by 60
Clinical pain management: Current practice and recent innovations in research
Wang, J., & Doan, L. (2024) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101786 · Cited by 74
Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain in Neuro-Rehabilitation
Intiso, D., Basciani, M., Santamato, A., Intiso, M. B. D., & Rienzo, F. D. (2015) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins7072454 · Cited by 60
A pharmacological treatment algorithm for localized neuropathic pain
Allegri, M., Baron, R., Hans, G. H., Correa‐Illanes, G., Rojals, V. M., Mick, G., & Serpell, M. G. (2015) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1129321 · Cited by 60
Self-citationMoutal, A., Chew, L. A., Yang, X.-F., Wang, Y., Yeon, S. K., Telemi, E., Meroueh, S., Park, K. D., Raghuraman, S., Gilbraith, K. B., et al. (2016) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000555 · Cited by 60
Calvo, M., Richards, N., Schmid, A. B., Barroso, A., Zhu, L., Ivulic, D., Zhu, N., Anwandter, P., Bhat, M. A., Court, F. A., et al. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.12661 · Cited by 61
Selective inhibition of small-diameter axons using infrared light
Lothet, E. H., Shaw, K. M., Lu, H., Zhuo, J., Wang, Y. T., Gu, S., Stolz, D. B., Jansen, D., Horn, C. C., Chiel, H. J., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03374-9 · Cited by 61
The prevalence of neuropathic pain is high after treatment for breast cancer: a systematic review
İlhan, E., Chee, E., Hush, J. M., & Moloney, N. A. (2017) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001004 · Cited by 59
Lawrence, R., Mogford, D., & Colvin, L. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aex316 · Cited by 51
From Mechanism to Cure: Renewing the Goal to Eliminate the Disease of Pain
Price, T. J., & Gold, M. S. (2017) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1093/pm/pnx108 · Cited by 58
Karlsson, P., Hincker, A. M., Jensen, T. S., Freeman, R. L., & Haroutounian, S. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001381 · Cited by 60
Self-citationPain and the immune system: emerging concepts of IgG-mediated autoimmune pain and immunotherapies
Xu, M. J., Bennett, D., Querol, L., Wu, L., Irani, S. R., Watson, J. C., Pittock, S. J., & Klein, C. J. (2018) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-318556 · Cited by 62
A light-gated potassium channel for sustained neuronal inhibition
Alberio, L., Locarno, A., Saponaro, A., Romano, E., Bercier, V., Albadri, S., Simeoni, F., Moleri, S., Pelucchi, S., Porro, A., et al. (2018) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0186-9 · Cited by 63
Li, J., Ma, J., Lacagnina, M. J., Lorca, S. A., Odem, M. A., Walters, E. T., Kavelaars, A., & Grace, P. M. (2019) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003077 · Cited by 63
Re-energizing the Development of Pain Therapeutics in Light of the Opioid Epidemic
Skolnick, P., & Volkow, N. D. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.051 · Cited by 63
Focused Ultrasound (FUS) for Chronic Pain Management: Approved and Potential Applications
di Biase, L., Falato, E., Caminiti, M. L., Pecoraro, P. M., Narducci, F., & Lazzaro, V. D. (2021) · Neurology Research International · doi:10.1155/2021/8438498 · Cited by 59
Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence
Afonso, A. S., Carnaval, T., & Videla, S. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10163533 · Cited by 59
Levesque, A., Bautrant, É., Quistrebert, V., Valancogne, G., Riant, T., Gabel, M. B., Leroi, A., Jottard, K., Bruyninx, L., Amarenco, G., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.1861 · Cited by 59
Glutamatergic systems in neuropathic pain and emerging non-opioid therapies
Temmermand, R., Barrett, J. E., & Fontana, A. C. K. (2022) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106492 · Cited by 64
Alpha-Lipoic Acid as an Antioxidant Strategy for Managing Neuropathic Pain
Viana, M. D. M., Lauria, P. S. S., de Lima, A. A., Opretzka, L. C. F., Marcelino, H. R., & Villarreal, C. F. (2022) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox11122420 · Cited by 59
Interplay of Nav1.8 and Nav1.7 channels drives neuronal hyperexcitability in neuropathic pain
Vasylyev, D. V., Zhao, P., Schulman, B. R. M., & Waxman, S. G. (2024) · The Journal of General Physiology · doi:10.1085/jgp.202413596 · Cited by 66
Capsaicin 8% Patch Repeat Treatment in Nondiabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Gálvez, R., Navez, M.-L., Moyle, G. J., Maihöfner, C., Stoker, M., Ernault, É., Nurmikko, T. J., & Attal, N. (2016) · Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000473 · Cited by 59
Self-citationBotulinum neurotoxin type A for the treatment of pain: not just in migraine and trigeminal neuralgia
Sandrini, G., Icco, R. D., Tassorelli, C., Smania, N., & Tamburin, S. (2017) · The Journal of Headache and Pain · doi:10.1186/s10194-017-0744-z · Cited by 59
Lidocaine Potentiates SOCS3 to Attenuate Inflammation in Microglia and Suppress Neuropathic Pain
Zheng, Y., Hou, X., & Yang, S. (2019) · Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s10571-019-00703-6 · Cited by 59
Selective Blockade of HCN1/HCN2 Channels as a Potential Pharmacological Strategy Against Pain
Dini, L., Del Lungo, M., Resta, F., Melchiorre, M., Spinelli, V., Di Cesare Mannelli, L., Ghelardini, C., Laurino, A., Sartiani, L., Coppini, R., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01252 · Cited by 55
Sidorova, Y. A. (2017) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00365 · Cited by 58
Merlin, J. S., Bulls, H. W., Vucovich, L. A., Edelman, E. J., & Starrels, J. L. (2016) · AIDS Care · doi:10.1080/09540121.2016.1191612 · Cited by 58
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults
Wiffen, P. J., Knaggs, R., Derry, S., Cole, P., Phillips, T., & Moore, A. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012227.pub2 · Cited by 60
Self-citationExploring acute-to-chronic neuropathic pain in rats after contusion spinal cord injury
Gaudet, A. D., Ayala, M. T., Schleicher, W. E., Smith, E. J., Bateman, E. M., Maier, S. F., & Watkins, L. R. (2017) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2017.05.011 · Cited by 58
Weir, G. A., Middleton, S. J., Clark, A. J., Daniel, T., Khovanov, N., McMahon, S. B., & Bennett, D. (2017) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awx201 · Cited by 61
Murphy, K., Bethea, J. R., & Fischer, R. (2017) · Codon Publications eBooks · doi:10.15586/codon.multiplesclerosis.2017.ch4 · Cited by 59
Cramond, F., O’Mara-Eves, A., Doran-Constant, L., Rice, A. S. C., Macleod, M. R., & Thomas, J. (2019) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14738.3 · Cited by 58
Self-citationNelson, T. S., Fu, W., Donahue, R. R., Corder, G. F., Hökfelt, T. G. M., Wiley, R. G., & Taylor, B. K. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43493-z · Cited by 58
Haroutounian, S., Arendt‐Nielsen, L., Belton, J. L., Blyth, F., Degenhardt, L. J., Forti, M. D., Eccleston, C., Finn, D. P., Finnerup, N. B., Fisher, E., et al. (2021) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002266 · Cited by 66
Self-citationTreating persistent pain after breast cancer surgery
Khan, J. S., Ladha, K. S., Abdallah, F., & Clarke, H. (2020) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-019-01227-5 · Cited by 57
A new aspect of chronic pain as a lifestyle-related disease
Senba, E., & Kami, K. (2017) · Neurobiology of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ynpai.2017.04.003 · Cited by 57
Petersen, E., Stauss, T. G., Scowcroft, J. A., Jaasma, M. J., Brooks, E. S., Edgar, D. R., White, J. L., Sills, S. M., Amirdelfan, K., Guirguis, M. N., et al. (2023) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110865 · Cited by 59
Κube, T., & Rief, W. (2016) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2016.11.022 · Cited by 59
Roquilly, A., Vigué, B., Boutonnet, M., Bouzat, P., Buffenoir, K., Cesaréo, E., Chauvin, A., Court, C., Cook, F., de Crouy, A.-C., et al. (2020) · Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.accpm.2020.02.003 · Cited by 57
Juwara, L., Arora, N., Gornitsky, M., Saha‐Chaudhuri, P., & Velly, A. M. (2020) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104170 · Cited by 56
Jones, R. C. W., Lawson, E. F., & Bačkonja, M. (2015) · Medical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2015.08.009 · Cited by 57
Wang, C., & Wang, C. (2017) · Inflammopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s10787-016-0307-y · Cited by 57
Ito, S., Suto, T., Saito, S., & Obata, H. (2017) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002380 · Cited by 56
Pathophysiology and management of diabetic gastroenteropathy
Meldgaard, T., Keller, J., Olesen, A. E., Olesen, S. S., Krogh, K., Borre, M., Farmer, A. D., Brock, B., Brock, C., & Drewes, A. M. (2019) · Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology · doi:10.1177/1756284819852047 · Cited by 59
Update on the Management of Diabetic Neuropathy
Ang, L., Cowdin, N., Mizokami-Stout, K., & Pop-Busui, R. (2018) · Diabetes Spectrum · doi:10.2337/ds18-0036 · Cited by 55
Effect of Acupuncture on Diabetic Neuropathy: A Narrative Review
Cho, E., & Kim, W. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22168575 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Finnerup, N. B., Attal, N., Haroutounian, S., McNicol, E., Baron, R., Dworkin, R. H., Gilron, I., Haanpää, M., Hansson, P., Jensen, T. S., Kamerman, P. R., Lund, K., Moore, A., Raja, S. N., Rice, A. S. C., Rowbotham, M., Sena, E., Siddall, P., Smith, B. H., & Wallace, M.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Inserm (FR)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Tufts Medical Center (US)
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- Queen's University (CA)
- Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- Churchill Hospital (GB)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- University of Dundee (GB)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Attal, Nadine
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Neurology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 162-173
- ISSN
- 1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4493167
- OpenAlex
- W2104818454
- Cited by
- 3,980
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 316 · 2025: 363 · 2024: 399 · 2023: 362 · 2022: 367 · 2021: 447 · 2020: 384 · 2019: 367 · 2018: 336 · 2017: 305 · 2016: 228 · 2015: 99
- FWCI
- 39.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Lancet Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medtronic
- Sanofi Pasteur
- Advanced Scientific Computing Research
- Dunhill Medical Trust
- National Institutes of Health
- Biogen Idec
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- AbbVie
- National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia
- Novartis
- International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association
- Pfizer
- Merck Sharp and Dohme
- National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
- Astellas Pharma US
- Wellcome Trust
- AstraZeneca
- Westminster Medical School Research Trust
- Merck
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
- Allergan
- Eisai
- Eli Lilly and Company
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Bayer Schering
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- neuropathic pain, pharmacotherapy, duloxetine, pregabalin, gabapentin, tricyclic antidepressants, tramadol, botulinum toxin type A, lidocaine patch, capsaicin patch, topical analgesics, number needed to treat, publication bias, treatment guidelines, first-line therapy, safety and tolerability, cost-effectiveness, adults, quality of evidence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic, Humans, Neuralgia, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Pain Management
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
