SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Levetiracetam for neuropathic pain in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Management of pain in individuals with spinal cord injury: Guideline of the German-Speaking Medical Society for Spinal Cord Injury.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2019Guideline
- Systematic review of management of chronic pain after surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Fatigue in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The Role of Drug Therapy Within a Holistic Management Framework.Drugs · 2026Review
- Chronic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis: Mechanisms, Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Changing the Perceived Pain Intensity in Populations With Spinal Cord Injury and With Health Disparities (HAPPINESS): Protocol for a Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Cetirizine and Levetiracetam as Inhibitors of Monoacylglycerol Lipase: Investigating Their Repurposing Potential as Novel Osteoarthritic Pain Therapies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Approach for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Pain Management at the End of Life in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review of the Literature and a Practical Clinical Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Pharmacological Proposal Approach to Managing Chronic Pain Associated with COVID-19.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Central Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: Current and Emerging Pharmacological Strategies.CNS drugs · 2022Review
- Non-opioid pharmacologic treatment of chronic spinal cord injury-related pain.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2022Review
- Antiepileptic medicines in men and women with stroke in Sweden, a registry-based study.Health science reports · 2021Article
- [Treatment of polyneuropathy: autonomic symptoms and pain].Der Internist · 2020Review
- Neuropathic Pain Related with Spinal Disorders: A Systematic Review.Asian spine journal · 2017Review
- Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of levetiracetam for relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.
objectivesTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of levetiracetam in chronic neuropathic pain conditions in adults. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6) (via the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 3 July 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing levetiracetam with placebo or another active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants per treatments arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction; intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison; 8 to 12 weeks duration; parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with at least 200 participants in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving fewer than 200 participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. MAIN
resultsWe included six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain.None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or 'complete' or 'good' responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7).We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18)). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.
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.