SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Topical lidocaine 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 94 papers, 25 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
94 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of nerve block strategies for preventing postherpetic neuralgia in thoracic herpes zoster: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of use of NSAIDs or steroids during the acute phase of pain on the incidence of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Neuropathic agents in the management of pruritus in burn injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2021Pooled it
- Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic review of management of chronic pain after surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.