Cited by 123Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Opioid UsePain Management and Treatment

Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in non-specialist settings: summary of NICE guidance

Tan, T., Barry, P., Reken, S., Baker, M., On behalf of the Guideline Development Group·2010·BMJ

Abstract

Neuropathic pain is often difficult to treat as it is resistant to many medications and effective medications often have adverse effects. Its estimated prevalence is between 1% and 2% in the United Kingdom.1 Treatment practice is thought to vary considerably throughout the UK in terms of starting treatment, achievement of therapeutic doses, and correct sequencing of therapeutic classes, thus probably leading in some cases to inadequate pain control, with considerable morbidity. This article summarises the most recent recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on drug management for neuropathic pain in adults in primary and secondary care, excluding specialist pain services.2 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of best available clinical and cost effectiveness evidence. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the Guideline Development Group’s experience and opinion of what constitutes good practice including, in this guidance, lessons derived from other clinically relevant fields. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. The following definitions apply to this guideline: ### Key principles of care

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.c1079

Cites

0 references resolved

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Earlier recommendations sometimes reached discrepant conclusions because methods for assessing evidence quality were inconsistent.

    “prior recommendations sometimes came to discrepant conclusions because of inconsistencies in methods used to assess the quality of evidence (eg,13,15,16).”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, T., Barry, P., Reken, S., Baker, M., & On behalf of the Guideline Development Group
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Barry, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-03-24
Volume
340
Issue
mar24 1
Pages
c1079-c1079
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2057982488
Cited by
123
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 17
FWCI
7.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
neuropathic pain, pharmacological management, NICE guidelines, primary care, secondary care, pharmacotherapy, treatment resistance, adverse drug reactions, pain management
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Humans, Nervous System Diseases, Neuralgia

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