Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285054›Full record

Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2018

Efficacy of Low-Dose Amitriptyline for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Donna M Urquhart, Anita E Wluka, Maurits van Tulder, Stephane Heritier, Andrew Forbes, Chris Fong, Yuanyuan Wang, Malcolm R Sim, Stephen J Gibson, Carolyn Arnold and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antidepressants for low back pain and spine-related leg pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Nortriptyline for pain in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomised controlled trial in New Zealand general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Comparative effectiveness of amitriptylineWorld journal of methodology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Donna M UrquhartDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Anita E WlukaDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Maurits van TulderDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stephane HeritierDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew ForbesDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Chris FongEastern Health Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Yuanyuan WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Malcolm R SimDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephen J GibsonNational Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.
Carolyn ArnoldDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Flavia M CicuttiniDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Monash University · AUNational Ageing Research Institute · AUVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy. Objective: To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out. Intervention: Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire. Results: Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmitriptylineAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticChronic PainDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment OutcomeAmitriptylineAnalgesics, Non-Narcotic

Identifiers

PMID30285054
PMCPMC6248203
OpenAlexW2800947914

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.