The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Study of the Effects of Single-dose Gabapentin versus Placebo on Postoperative Pain and Morphine Consumption after Mastectomy
Open accessAbstract
Background: The anticonvulsant gabapentin has proven effective for neuropathic pain in three large placebo-controlled clinical trials. Experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated antihyperalgesic effects in models involving central neuronal sensitization. It has been suggested that central neuronal sensitization may play an important role in postoperative pain. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of gabapentin on morphine consumption and postoperative pain in patients undergoing radical mastectomy. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 70 patients received a single dose of oral gabapentin (1,200 mg) or placebo 1 h before surgery. Patients received patient-controlled analgesia with morphine at doses of 2.5 mg with a lock-out time of 10 min for 4 h postoperatively. Pain was assessed on a visual analog scale at rest and during movement, and side effects were assessed on a four-point verbal scale 2 and 4 h postoperatively. Results: Thirty-one patients in the gabapentin group and 34 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Gabapentin reduced total morphine consumption from a median of 29 (interquartile range, 21-33) to 15 (10-19) mg (P< 0.0001). Pain during movement was reduced from 41 (31-59) to 22 (10-38) mm at 2 h postoperatively (P < 0.0001) and from 31 (12-40) to 9 (3-34) mm at 4 h postoperatively (P = 0.018). No significant differences between groups were observed with regard to pain at rest or side effects. Conclusion: A single dose of 1,200 mg oral gabapentin resulted in a substantial reduction in postoperative morphine consumption and movement-related pain after radical mastectomy, without significant side effects. These promising results should be validated in other acute pain models involving central neuronal sensitization.
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
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
Cited by
Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery
Kehlet, H., & Dahl, J. B. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14966-5 · Cited by 1,446
Self-citationTiippana, E. M., Hamunen, K., Kontinen, V. K., & Kalso, E. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000261517.27532.80 · Cited by 532
The Changing Role of Non-Opioid Analgesic Techniques in the Management of Postoperative Pain
White, P. F. (2005) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000177099.28914.a7 · Cited by 527
Temple-Oberle, C., Shea-Budgell, M. A., Tan, M., Semple, J. L., Schrag, C., Barreto, M., Blondeel, P., Hamming, J., Dayan, J., & Ljungqvist, O. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003242 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Dirks, J., Fredensborg, B. B., Christensen, D., Fomsgaard, J. S., Flyger, H., & Dahl, J. B.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2002-09-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 560-564
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144911177
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 Randomized Study of the Effects of Single-dose Gabapentin versus Placebo on Postoperative Pain and Morphine Consumption after Mastectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000542-200209000-00007
- The paper
- Dirks, J., Fredensborg, B. B., Christensen, D., Fomsgaard, J. S., Flyger, H., & Dahl, J. B. (2002). A Randomized Study of the Effects of Single-dose Gabapentin versus Placebo on Postoperative Pain and Morphine Consumption after Mastectomy. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200209000-00007
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.