SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025
Ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists for chronic pain.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists for chronic pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Topical Pain Management: An Updated Review of Current Evidence and Emerging Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Exosomes from mesenchymal stem/stromal cells and their therapeutic role in osteoarthritic pain.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Long-term relief of CRPS-associated limb dystonia with ketamine infusion.BMJ case reports · 2026Article
- Navigating Chronic Pain in Patients with Cirrhosis: Unique Analgesic Considerations and Non-Pharmacologic Options.Current hepatology reports · 2026Review
- Targeting endoplasmic reticulum stress: a novel therapeutic strategy for neuropathic pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrated approaches to geriatric mental disorders: pathophysiology, interventions, and precision medicine horizons.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Article
- Identification of Axonal Regeneration-Related Genes and a Potential Analgesic Drug for Neuropathic Pain.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Multimodal Approaches for Pain Management and Improving Functional Outcomes Following Amputation.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- The role of ketamine and its enantiomer in managing depression and pain in cancer patients: A narrative review.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2024Article
- The Efficacy of Ketamine for Acute and Chronic Pain in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Synaptic sensitization in the anterior cingulate cortex sustains the consciousness of pain via synchronized oscillating electromagnetic waves.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleN-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists are a group of medicines classed according to their mechanism of action. Ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists are used to treat chronic pain, despite uncertain benefits and harms.
objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of ketamine and other NDMA receptor antagonists compared to placebo, usual care, or other medicines for adults with chronic non-cancer, non-headache pain. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries (with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors/experts) to identify included studies. The last search was 3 June 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic pain (≥ 3 months' duration), evaluating ketamine, memantine, dextromethorphan, amantadine, or magnesium versus placebo, usual care, or another medicine. We excluded studies of cancer or headache pain. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Important outcomes were disability, depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, tolerability, and opioid consumption. For adverse events and tolerability, follow-up was until the end of treatment. For all other outcomes, we were interested in treatment effects in the immediate term (48 hours-1 week), short term (> 1 week-3 months), medium term (> 3 months-6 months), and long term (> 6 months). RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2). SYNTHESIS
methodsWe converted all continuous pain intensity scores to a 0-to-100 scale (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain). We synthesised results using random-effects meta-analysis where possible, reporting mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, each with its 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We found 67 RCTs (2309 participants): 30 parallel-group RCTs (1568 participants) and 37 cross-over RCTs (741 participants). Most studies (96%) were from high-income countries. Female participation ranged from 11% to 100%. The interventions were ketamine (39 studies), memantine (10 studies), dextromethorphan (9 studies), amantadine (3 studies), and magnesium (8 studies). Sixty-two studies used placebo comparators. Our quantitative synthesis included 28 studies. SYNTHESIS OF
resultsResults are presented for pain intensity (continuous measures, at reported time points) and total adverse events. Ketamine Intravenous ketamine versus placebo There is no clear evidence that intravenous ketamine reduces pain intensity in the immediate term (MD -15.79, 95% CI -32.09 to 0.51; 3 studies, 173 participants; very low certainty), short term (MD -5.32, 95% CI -15.51 to 4.87; 4 studies, 114 participants; low certainty), or medium term (MD -8.70, 95% CI -31.05 to 13.65; 1 study, 19 participants; very low certainty). Intravenous ketamine may increase the risk of adverse events (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.05 to 10.09; 4 studies, 140 participants; low certainty). Oral ketamine versus placebo There is no clear evidence that oral ketamine reduces pain intensity in the immediate term (MD -2.64, 95% CI -13.42 to 8.14; 2 studies, 46 participants; low certainty) or short term (MD -9.80, 95% CI -23.55 to 3.95; 2 studies, 40 participants; low certainty). No studies reported total adverse events. Topical ketamine versus placebo There is no clear evidence that topical ketamine reduces pain intensity in the immediate term (MD 1.90, 95% CI -18.73 to 22.53; 1 study, 47 participants; very low certainty) or short term (MD 2.82, 95% CI -14.49 to 20.12; 2 studies, 64 participants; low certainty). There is no clear evidence that topical ketamine increases the risk of adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.73; 1 study, 47 participants; low certainty). Memantine Oral memantine versus placebo There is no clear evidence that oral memantine reduces pain intensity in the immediate term (MD 4.00, 95% CI -9.93 to 17.93; 1 study, 36 participants; very low certainty), short term (MD -8.69, 95% CI -19.40 to 2.02; 6 studies, 217 participants; very low certainty), or medium term (MD -1.74, 95% CI -43.18 to 39.70; 2 studies, 101 participants; very low certainty). There is no clear evidence that oral memantine increases the risk of adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.56; 3 studies, 100 participants; low certainty). Dextromethorphan Oral dextromethorphan versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral dextromethorphan on pain intensity in the short term (MD -9.00, 95% CI -22.86 to 4.86; 1 study, 40 participants; very low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of adverse events with oral dextromethorphan (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.43; 1 study, 40 participants; very low certainty). Amantadine Oral amantadine versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral amantadine on pain intensity in the immediate term (MD 6.00, 95% CI -12.45 to 24.45; 1 study, 26 participants; very low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of adverse events with oral amantadine (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.14 to 5.20; 1 study, 26 participants; very low certainty). Magnesium Intravenous magnesium versus placebo There is no clear evidence that intravenous magnesium reduces pain intensity in the immediate term (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.43 to 10.43; 1 study, 55 participants; low certainty) and short term (MD -3.47, 95% CI -15.25 to 8.31; 2 studies, 82 participants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of adverse events with intravenous magnesium (0/35 events in intravenous magnesium group versus 0/35 in placebo group; 1 study, 70 participants; very low certainty). Oral magnesium versus placebo There is no clear evidence that oral magnesium reduces pain intensity in the short term (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.32 to 7.21; 2 studies, 118 participants; low certainty). No studies reported total adverse events. AUTHORS'
conclusionsLimited low- to very low-certainty evidence limits conclusions about the effects of ketamine, memantine, dextromethorphan, amantadine, and magnesium on pain intensity. Intravenous ketamine may increase the risk of adverse events, but the harms of ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists are generally unclear. Adequately powered RCTs are needed to determine the benefits and harms of ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists for chronic pain.
fundingNo dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available: doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015373.
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.