ArticleJournal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia2026
Comparative safety and health service utilization for gabapentin versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for cervical radiculopathy: A retrospective cohort study of academic centers.
Article in Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOff-label use of gabapentin for neuropathic pain conditions such as cervical radiculopathy (CR) remains controversial due to limited evidence of benefit and safety concerns (e.g., opioid co-prescription, adverse drug events [ADEs], dizziness, and hospitalization risk), necessitating further research. This study explores safety risks and health service utilization in adults with newly diagnosed CR, comparing gabapentin to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to inform clinical practice.
methodsThis retrospective propensity-matched cohort study using the TriNetX database included opioid-naïve adults (≥18 years) with newly-diagnosed CR without history of spinal surgery, spinal neoplasms, myelopathy, opioid-use disorder or cervical injection. Patients were divided into gabapentin or NSAID cohorts based on prescription at CR diagnosis, and matched for demographics, prescriptions, and comorbidities. Outcomes included incidence and risk ratios (RRs) of safety and health service utilization markers assessed through one year. Significance was evaluated at P < 0.0036 (Bonferroni-corrected).
resultsAfter matching, there were 23,379 patients (mean age: 53 years; 57% female) per cohort. About 14% of patients per cohort were co-prescribed opioids at CR diagnosis. Compared to the NSAID cohort, the gabapentin cohort had a statistically significant (P < 0.0036) increased risk of posterior cervical fusion (RR: 3.23), opioid-related disorder (RR: 2.87), cervical corticosteroid injection (RR: 2.52), opioid-related ADEs (RR: 2.32), anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (RR: 2.10), acute respiratory failure (RR: 1.80), cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (RR: 1.43), inpatient visits (RR: 1.38), oral opioid prescription (RR: 1.34), and cervical spine radiographic imaging (RR: 1.21). Risk of dizziness, falls, somnolence, and emergency department visits was not significantly increased (P > 0.0036).
conclusionGabapentin prescription for newly-diagnosed CR in adults was associated with increases in opioid prescription, adverse safety events, and health service utilization compared to NSAIDs, corroborating its lack of guideline recommendation for CR. No outcome favored gabapentin over NSAIDs. Gabapentin was occasionally co-prescribed with opioids at CR diagnosis, raising concerns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.