SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04855578 (GABA-WHY Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 245 papers, 13 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.
GABA-WHY Study: Deprescription of Gabapentinoids in Medical Inpatients
Who cites it
245 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 499 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026Pooled it
- Mirogabalin for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain and Associated Sleep Interference: An Updated Meta-Analysis.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Healthcare Practitioner and Other Professionals' Perspectives on Gabapentinoid Misuse and Dependence: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of bloodletting therapy for acute herpes zoster: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for treatment of post refractive surgery pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2024Pooled it
- 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Full Version Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2024Guideline
- Different Gabapentin and Pregabalin Dosages for Perioperative Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled 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
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022Guideline
- Is gabapentin effective and safe in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of treatment for patients with burning mouth syndrome.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2022Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in managing painful diabetic neuropathy: A post-study survey.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Trial
- Modafinil Versus Amphetamine-Dextroamphetamine For Idiopathic Hypersomnia and Narcolepsy Type 2: A Randomized, Blinded, Non-inferiority Trial.CNS drugs · 2024Trial
- Pilot RCT comparing low-dose naltrexone, gabapentin and placebo to reduce pain among people with HIV with alcohol problems.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: 24-Month results of a randomized controlled trial.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2023Trial
- Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization in pediatric neurofibromatosis type 1-associated symptomatic plexiform neurofibroma in the United States from 2000 to 2019.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Real world treatment patterns among patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the United States.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Essential medications in palliative care: an updated survey of Australian and New Zealand medical practitioners practising palliative care.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
185 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.
objectivesTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH
methodsFor this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN
resultsWe included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). AUTHORS'
conclusionsGabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.
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.