ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of neurogenic claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to the letter to the editor: Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of neurogenic claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor: Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of neurogenic claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Effect of sarcopenia and paraspinal muscle morphology on conservative treatment outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designA double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin (GBA) and pregabalin (PGB) versus placebo in managing neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC), functional outcomes, and quality of life in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: GBA and PGB are frequently prescribed for NIC associated with LSS. However, evidence supporting their efficacy, either in comparison with placebo or in direct comparison between the two gabapentinoids in LSS, remains limited.
methodsLSS patients with predominant NIC symptoms for ≥3 months were randomized (1:1:1) to receive GBA (1,800 mg/day), PGB (300 mg/day), or placebo in addition to standard conservative management, including physical therapy and naproxen. GBA and PGB were both titrated to the effective dose over 14 days. The primary outcome was NIC pain measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), self-paced shuttle walk test (SPSWT; time to NIC symptoms and walking distance), Euro-QoL Group's 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and adverse effects. All outcomes were assessed monthly over 4 months.
resultsNinety patients (mean age, 63.14 years; symptoms duration, 19.38 months) were included. All groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, SSS, SPSWT, and EQ-5D-5L at 4 months. At 1 and 2 months, PGB showed greater EQ-5D-5L improvement compared to GBA (mean differences: 0.07 [p=0.045] and 0.08 [p=0.001], respectively). No significant differences in other outcomes were observed between groups at any time point. Adverse effects, including dizziness and sedation, were more common in the GBA and PGB groups compared to placebo (p<0.001).
conclusionsGBA and PGB did not demonstrate superior efficacy over placebo in reducing NIC and improving functional outcomes in LSS. Moreover, their use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects. These findings suggest limited utility for gabapentinoids as adjunctive treatments for LSS.
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.