The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Palmitoylethanolamide for the treatment of pain: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy
Open accessAbstract
Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has been suggested to have useful analgesic properties and to be devoid of unwanted effects. Here, we have examined critically this contention, and discussed available data concerning the pharmacokinetics of PEA and its formulation. Sixteen clinical trials, six case reports/pilot studies and a meta‐analysis of PEA as an analgesic have been published in the literature. For treatment times up to 49 days, the current clinical data argue against serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at an incidence of 1/200 or greater. For treatment lasting more than 60 days, the number of patients is insufficient to rule out a frequency of ADRs of less than 1/100. The six published randomized clinical trials are of variable quality. Presentation of data without information on data spread and nonreporting of data at times other than the final measurement were among issues that were identified. Further, there are no head‐to‐head clinical comparisons of unmicronized vs. micronized formulations of PEA, and so evidence for superiority of one formulation over the other is currently lacking. Nevertheless, the available clinical data support the contention that PEA has analgesic actions and motivate further study of this compound, particularly with respect to head‐to‐head comparisons of unmicronized vs. micronized formulations of PEA and comparisons with currently recommended treatments.
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
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761
Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Katz, N. P., Kerns, R. D., Stucki, G., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., et al. (2005) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 · Cited by 3,732
Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., et al. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 · Cited by 3,510
Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain
Joyce, C. R. B., Zutshi, D. W., Hrubes, V., & Mason, R. M. (1975) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00562315 · Cited by 539
Costa, B., Comelli, F., Bettoni, I., Colleoni, M., & Giagnoni, G. (2008) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.003 · Cited by 286
Cited by
Petrosino, S., & Di Marzo, V. (2017) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.13580 · Cited by 328
Management of pain in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD): challenges and solutions
Gil-Martinez, A., Paris-Alemany, A., López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, I., & La Touche, R. (2018) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s127950 · Cited by 299
Cordaro, M., Cuzzocrea, S., & Crupi, R. (2020) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox9030216 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Gabrielsson, L., Mattsson, S., & Fowler, C. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-06-29
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 932-942
- ISSN
- 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2125
- OpenAlex
- W2400751176
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Palmitoylethanolamide for the treatment of pain: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bcp.13020
- The paper
- Gabrielsson, L., Mattsson, S., & Fowler, C. J. (2016). Palmitoylethanolamide for the treatment of pain: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13020
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.