Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852965›Full record

Trial reportMolecular pain2016

A randomized placebo-controlled pilot study of the efficacy and safety of D-cycloserine in people with chronic back pain.

Thomas J Schnitzer, Souraya Torbey, Kristi Herrmann, Gagan Kaushal, Renita Yeasted, A Vania Apkarian

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Molecular pain, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00125528 (D-Cycloserine in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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.

NCT00125528 phase2completednot on this map

D-Cycloserine in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorThomas J. SchnitzerRan2012 to 2014Enrolled41ConditionsLow Back Pain, PainArmsD-cycloserine, placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Brain mechanisms of chronic pain: critical role of translational approach.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas J SchnitzerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA tjs@northwestern.edu.
Souraya TorbeyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Virginia School of Medicine, VA, USA.
Kristi HerrmannDepartment of Physiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Gagan KaushalJefferson School of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University, PA, USA.
Renita YeastedDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
A Vania ApkarianDepartment of Physiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Northwestern University · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew effective pharmacological treatment options exist for chronic back pain, the leading cause of disability in the US, and all are associated with significant adverse effects.

objectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of D-cycloserine, a partial agonist to the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

methodsA total of 41 participants with chronic back pain who met all inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pilot trial of D-cycloserine. Treatment was administered orally for six weeks at escalating daily doses of 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg, each for two weeks. The primary outcome measure was back pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Secondary measures were back pain-related questionnaires: McGill Pain Questionnaire short form, painDETECT, PANAS, and BDI. The pre-specified analysis was a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance.

resultsA treatment difference was observed between groups treated with D-cycloserine and placebo at six weeks of 1.05 ± 3.1 units on the Numeric Rating Scale, with an effect size of 0.4 and p = 0.14. This trend of better chronic back pain relief with D-cycloserine was also observed in the secondary measures. No safety issues were seen.

conclusionThe difference in mean pain between the D-cycloserine and placebo groups did not reach statistical significance. However, a clinically meaningful effect size in the magnitude of pain relief was observed with a consistent pattern across multiple outcome measures with good safety, supporting further research into the effectiveness of D-cycloserine for chronic back pain.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChronic PainCycloserineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsReceptors, N-Methyl-D-AspartateTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCycloserineReceptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartatechronic back painclinical trialD-cycloserineN-methyl-D-aspartate agonistrandomized

Identifiers

PMID27852965
PMCPMC5117251
OpenAlexW2554109414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.