ArticleAtencion primaria2011
[Intervention study on subacute and chronic pain in primary care: an approach to the effectiveness of neural therapy].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2011. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional release and physical symptom improvement: a qualitative analysis of self-reported outcomes and mechanisms in patients treated with neural therapy.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2018Trial
- Neurological symphony: post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, an innovative pathophysiological exploration from neuraltherapeutic medicine.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2024Review
- Improvement in post-orthodontic chronic musculoskeletal pain after local anesthetic injections in the trigeminal area: a case series.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of NT in reducing pain and minimising use of analgesics in patients.
designBefore and after intervention study.
settingLlefià Primary Health Care centre in Badalona (Barcelona).
participantsEighty-two patients between the ages of 25 and 85 years old, who suffered pain that did not disappear after a month. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Data was collected to evaluate any change in pain and the use of analgesics in patients before intervention and then afterwards, at 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. This was conducted by means of interviews and use of the Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS).
resultsMean VAS pre-treatment: 7.94 (SD: 1.68), mean VAS after two weeks 4.63 (SD: 2.79), after 3 months 3.73 (SD: 3.17), and after 6 months 3.48 (SD: 3,27) (P<.001 in the 3 comparisons, using the Wilcoxon-test for matched data). As regards analgesic use after treatment, 74.4% of patients reduced it after 2 weeks, 76.8% after 3 months and 80% after 6 months.
conclusionsNeural therapy can be effective in reducing pain, as well as the use of analgesics. Further clinical trials would be needed to confirm this assertion.
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.