ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2020
[Long-term effectiveness of topical analgesics].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Clinical use of botulinum toxin type A in pain medicine].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuropathic pain consistently presents a significant therapeutic challenge. Topically applied analgesics have the advantage of showing low systemic side effects, but data on long-term effectiveness are lacking. Consequently, interviews were carried out with all patients being treated with topical analgesics in hospital.
methodsEthics 16-5690, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) 00011877. Between 2008 and 2017 a total of 265 patients were treated at least once with either capsaicin 8% (C), lidocaine 5% (L) and/or perineural botulinum toxin type A (B). From this sample, 205 patients (77%) were interviewed by telephone for feedback on pain reduction (first/last treatment: low/moderate/very good), the possible reduction of analgesic prescription and if applicable the reasons for discontinuation of use (time of interview C: 26 ± 19 months, L: 61 ± 23 months, B: 11 ± 6 months after start). Further pretreatment data and diagnoses were obtained from the in-house documentation system. Responders or long-term responders were defined as patients with at least one moderate pain reduction after the first or last treatment, as long as the effect was adequately maintained.
resultsIn all treatment groups (56 ± 13 years, 62% male, C: 80, L: 84, B: 58 patients) patients with a long history of pain (C: 60 ± 73 months, L: 59 ± 66 months, B: 67 ± 71 months) and high pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS, C: 7 ± 2, L: 7 ± 2, B: 6 ± 2), were predominant. The highest primary and long-term responder rates were exhibited by L (57%/60%, B: 52%/37%, C: 23%/15%). With B, long-term responders were most frequently able to reduce analgesic use (74%, C: 58%, L: 38%). DISCUSSION: Despite the long duration of the disease, the most used off-label topical drugs L and B demonstrated a high primary response rate (in contrast to C), with most benefiting from long-term treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31562537What 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.