Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26935254›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2016

Neuropathic low back pain in clinical practice.

R Baron, A Binder, N Attal, R Casale, A H Dickenson, R-D Treede

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pain (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 267 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

38 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

R BaronDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
A BinderDivision of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
N AttalINSERM U 987 and Centre d'Evaluation et de Traitement De La Douleur, APHP, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
R CasaleHabilita Care & Research Hospitals, 24040, Zingonia di Ciserano, Italy.
A H DickensonDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, UK.
R-D TreedeCentre of Biomedicine and Medical Technology Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DELaboratoire Vision Action Cognition · FRUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most common chronic pain conditions. This paper reviews the available literature on the role of neuropathic mechanisms in chronic LBP and discusses implications for its clinical management, with a particular focus on pharmacological treatments. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Literature searches were performed in PubMed, key pain congresses and ProQuest Dialog to identify published evidence on neuropathic back pain and its management. All titles were assessed for relevant literature.

resultsChronic LBP comprises both nociceptive and neuropathic components, however, the neuropathic component appears under-recognized and undertreated. Neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging to manage. Many patients with chronic LBP have pain that is refractory to existing treatments. Typically, less than half of patients experience clinically meaningful analgesia with oral pharmacotherapies; these are also associated with risks of adverse effects. Paracetamol and NSAIDs, although widely used for LBP, are unlikely to ameliorate the neuropathic component and data on the use of NP medications such as antidepressants and gabapentin/pregabalin are limited. While there is an unmet need for improved treatment options, recent data have shown tapentadol to have efficacy in the neuropathic component of LBP, and studies suggest that the capsaicin 8% patch and lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, topical analgesics available for the treatment of peripheral NP, may be a valuable additional approach for the management of neuropathic LBP.

conclusionsChronic LBP often has an under-recognized neuropathic component, which can be challenging to manage, and requires improved understanding and better diagnosis and treatment. WHAT DOES THIS REVIEW ADD?: Increased recognition and improved understanding of the neuropathic component of low back pain raises the potential for the development of mechanism-based therapies. Open and retrospective studies suggest that agents like tapentadol and topical analgesics - such as the capsaicin 8% patch and the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster - may be effective options for the treatment of neuropathic low back pain in defined patient groups.

Indexed as

AnalgesicsChronic PainHumansLow Back PainNeuralgiaAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID26935254
PMCPMC5069616
OpenAlexW2291450076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.