Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25058164›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults.

Sheena Derry, Philip J Wiffen, R Andrew Moore, Jane Quinlan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 94 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 25 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  17. Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  18. Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  19. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  20. Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sheena DerryPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE.
Philip J Wiffen
R Andrew Moore
Jane Quinlan
University of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.

objectivesTo assess the analgesic efficacy of topical lidocaine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing any formulation of topical lidocaine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles. 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 adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. MAIN

resultsWe included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, LocalHumansLidocaineNeuralgiaNeuralgia, PostherpeticPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTrigeminal NeuralgiaAnesthetics, LocalLidocaine

Identifiers

PMID25058164
PMCPMC6540846
OpenAlexW1609116925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.