ArticleDer Nervenarzt2010
[Lidocaine patch for therapy of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. A clinical case series of 87 patients].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can treatment success with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster be predicted in cancer pain with neuropathic components or trigeminal neuropathic pain?Journal of pain research · 2013Article
- Treatment of localized neuropathic pain after disk herniation with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster.International journal of general medicine · 2012Article
- Use of lidocaine patch for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy.The Korean journal of pain · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTopical lidocaine patches (LP) reduce pain in postherpetic neuralgia and other forms of focal neuropathy. The aim of this study was to determine clinical predictors of therapeutic success. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe medical histories of 87 patients with neuropathic (NS) and non-neuropathic pain (NNS) who had received LP as an add-on to their established pain medication were retrospectively analyzed. The variables assessed were gender, age, analgesic co-medication, pain localization, adverse effects and presence of dynamic allodynia. The impact of these variables on the clinical pain-relieving effect (scored on a 5-point scale) was investigated.
resultsA total of 24 out of 28 patients with manifest allodynia scored the therapy with LP as beneficial, patients without allodynia (n=59, 67.8%) profited significantly less frequently with only 39% (p<0.001). The probability of profiting from LP therapy in the presence of allodynia was found to be about tenfold higher compared to patients without allodynia (odds ratio 9.14). Of the 87 patients investigated 48 were female (55.2%). Allodynia was considerably more frequent in women (39.6%) compared to men (23.1%) but this was insignificant. Of the female patients 62.5% responded to LP treatment, compared to only 43.6% of men. In more than 60% of cases rated as very good pain relief allodynia was manifest and in non-responders only in less than 10%. The variables age, pain localization and analgesic co-medication were not related with the success of therapy. DISCUSSION: Patients with manifest allodynia profited significantly more frequently from LP therapy and were less frequently non-responders. Female patients showed therapeutic success more often together with a higher rate of allodynia.
conclusionsIn the presence of allodynia, in especially of neuropathic origin, LP seems to be an effective and save option for add-on therapy, this being independent from pain localization and age. Gender specific effects however need more systematic investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.