Cited by 220Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Trial of pregabalin for acute and chronic sciatica

Open access
Mathieson, Stephanie, Maher, Christopher G., McLachlan, Andrew J., Latimer, Jane, Koes, Bart W., Hancock, Mark J., Harris, Ian, Day, Richard O. +4 more·2017·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sciatica can be disabling, and evidence regarding medical treatments is limited. Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of some types of neuropathic pain. This study examined whether pregabalin may reduce the intensity of sciatica. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin at a dose of 150 mg per day that was adjusted to a maximum dose of 600 mg per day or matching placebo for up to 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the leg-pain intensity score on a 10-point scale (with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) at week 8; the leg-pain intensity score was also evaluated at week 52, a secondary time point for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the extent of disability, back-pain intensity, and quality-of-life measures at prespecified time points over the course of 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent randomization, of whom 108 received pregabalin and 101 received placebo; after randomization, 2 patients in the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses. At week 8, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.7 in the pregabalin group and 3.1 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 1.2; P=0.19). At week 52, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.4 in the pregabalin group and 3.0 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 1.0; P=0.46). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to any secondary outcome at either week 8 or week 52. A total of 227 adverse events were reported in the pregabalin group and 124 in the placebo group. Dizziness was more common in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pregabalin did not significantly reduce the intensity of leg pain associated with sciatica and did not significantly improve other outcomes, as compared with placebo, over the course of 8 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRECISE Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000530729 .).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1614292

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]3. Ropper AH, Zafonte RD. Sciatica. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1240-8.
  2. [16]16. Food and Drug Administration. Statis- tical review and evaluation: antiepileptic drugs and suicidality. Rockville, MD: De- partment of Health and Human Services, 2008.
  3. [25]25. Ehrlich GE. Low back pain. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81: 671-6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mathieson, S., Maher, C. G., McLachlan, A. J., Latimer, J., Koes, B. W., Hancock, M. J., Harris, I., Day, R. O., Billot, L., Pik, J., Jan, S., & Lin, C.-W. C.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-03-23
Volume
376
Issue
12
Pages
1111-1120
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2600085695
Cited by
219
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 17
FWCI
20.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • GlaxoSmithKline Australia
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1042073)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
sciatica, pregabalin, leg pain, neuropathic pain, pain intensity, disability, back pain, quality of life, adverse events, dizziness, drug efficacy, placebo comparison, chronic sciatica, acute sciatica, lumbar radiculopathy, drug safety, dose adjustment, adverse drug reactions
MeSH terms
Pregabalin, Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Back Pain, Disability Evaluation, Dizziness, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Sciatica, Treatment Failure

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