ReviewNeural plasticity2023
Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.
Review in Neural plasticity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Vitamin D in Neuropathic Pain: Biological Mechanisms and Clinical Relevance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer survivors: a scoping review of pharmacological, exercise, and psychosocial interventions.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Psychological Subtypes and Intervention Strategies in Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological Approaches for the Management of Neuropathic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis.CNS drugs · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This evidence mapping is aimed at identifying, summarizing, and analyzing the available evidence on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for neuropathic pain (NP). Methods: This study was conducted following the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analysis published before February 15, 2022. The authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR-2. The results were presented in the tables and a bubble plot based on the identified population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) questions. Results: A total of 34 SRs met the eligibility criteria. According to the AMSTAR-2, 2 SRs were rated "high," 2 SRs were rated "moderate," 6 SRs were rated "low," and 24 SRs were rated "critically low." The most common study design utilized to evaluate the efficacy of CBT for NP was the randomized controlled trial. In total, 24 PICOs were identified. Migraine was the most studied population. CBT for NP usually reaches the "potentially better" result at follow-up. Conclusions: Evidence mapping is a useful way to present existing evidence. Currently, the existing evidence on CBT for NP is limited. Overall, the methodological quality of the included SRs was low. Further improvements in the methodological quality of SRs and more research on the most efficient CBT formats for NP are recommended in the future.
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.