ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Initial estimates of the minimal clinically important difference for the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory: a systematic meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of physical activity-based interventions to prevent or reduce chronic post-surgical pain.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Pooled it
- Topical RM191A gel for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Trial
- Characteristics of Patients Achieving Clinically Meaningful Improvement in Neuropathic Pain After Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Real-World Before-After Study ofNutrients · 2026Article
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
Background: The Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) is a commonly used assessment in neuropathic pain (NP) trials, yet a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) has not been established. An MCID would enhance the interpretability of NPSI scores, guiding clinicians and researchers in assessing clinically important improvements in NP symptoms. The aim of this study was to calculate an MCID from the available scientific research that used the NPSI. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of NP trials reporting the NPSI. Four distributional approaches were applied to estimate the MCID: 1) meta-regression on the set of standard deviation (SD) of change scores, 2) meta-regression on the set of baseline SD scores, 3) simple aggregation on the set of SD of change scores, and 4) simple aggregation on the set of baseline SD scores. Only treatment arms within Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were examined for MCID estimation. Control arms were examined separately in a sensitivity analysis using the simple aggregation method for both SD of change and baseline SD sets. Bias for each included study was assessed using the Cochrane tool for quality assessment of randomized controlled trials. Results: 323 trials were examined, 12 were selected for inclusion with a total of 17 treatment arms. The calculated MCID estimates for the NPSI total score (range 1-100) were 6.21 for the SD of change meta-regression and 7.1 for baseline SD meta regression. The MCID values aggregated using simple aggregation methods were 7.95 using pooled SD of change scores, 7.8 using pooled baseline SD. Control arms had a MCID of 8.04 for SD of Change and 8.71 for Baseline SD. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary MCID estimates for the NPSI. Limitations include limited data for NP subtypes, highlighting the need for additional anchor-based and etiology-specific MCID research to refine these estimates. These findings can aid in future NP trial design and the interpretation of results. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025649343, PROSEPRO CRD42025649343.
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.