ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2023
Gabapentinoid Prescribing Practices at a Large Academic Medical Center.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying responders to gabapentin for the treatment of alcohol use disorder: an exploratory machine learning approach.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2025Trial
- Article
- Mirogabalin Eliminated Pain and Reduced Inflammation in Visceral Pain.Physiological research · 2026Article
- Temporal trends in gabapentinoid use for the acute management of spinal cord injury: a retrospective cohort study.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Article
- Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing: A nationwide Danish drug utilization study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Prescribing Patterns and Off-Label Use of Gabapentinoid Agents at Dhulikhel Hospital, Nepal: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate indications for gabapentinoid prescription at an academic medical center. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients aged 18 years or older who were prescribed gabapentinoids (gabapentin or pregabalin) during the 2019 calendar year at an academic medical center in the US Midwest. Patient demographic characteristics, indications for gabapentinoid prescription, and prescribing clinician specialities were abstracted from a random sample, and the findings were extrapolated to the overall cohort. Results: A total of 6205 prescriptions for gabapentinoids were initially identified. In the random sample of prescriptions (n=721), 89.5% were for gabapentin and 10.5% were for pregabalin. More women than men were prescribed gabapentinoids, and the mean ± SD patient age was 58.6±16.9 years. The top 5 indications for gabapentinoid prescriptions were neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, restless legs syndrome, anxiety, and headache. A majority (66.7%) of prescriptions had substantial-to-modest evidence, but 29.0% of prescriptions had conflicting or insufficient evidence. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to manually review clinical notes from multiple clinical specialities to ascertain indications for gabapentinoid prescriptions. Although most prescriptions had modest evidence to support their use, a high percentage of gabapentinoid prescriptions were issued for indications not supported by robust evidence. This suggests that prescribers are gravitating toward gabapentinoid use for reasons that are currently not fully understood. Clinician intent for off-label gabapentinoid prescriptions at the point of care should be further studied to understand the factors that lead to these clinical decisions.
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.