ReviewAdvances in therapy2026
Low-Dose Naltrexone: What is the Evidence? A Narrative Review.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Naltrexone is prescribed off-label at low doses, typically 0.5-6.0 mg, for a variety of therapeutic indications. This review evaluates the clinical evidence for low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A literature search was conducted in February 2026 across PubMed, Embase and CINAHL for studies published from 1989 to 2026. Title and abstract searches for "low dose naltrexone" identified peer-reviewed English-language studies using doses of ≤ 12.5 mg in humans. A total of 105 studies were reviewed, including 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic pain, autoimmune and neuroimmune disorders, gastrointestinal disease, dermatological conditions, post-infectious syndromes, mental health and oncology. Across these fields, early positive findings from uncontrolled studies were rarely replicated in placebo-controlled trials. Most available evidence consists of case reports and small feasibility studies that are prone to publication bias and rely heavily on subjective outcomes. LDN is generally safe, inexpensive and well tolerated, with most studies using a daily dose of 4.5 mg. Although these features contribute to its appeal, current evidence does not support routine clinical use. LDN may have a pragmatic role in treatment-resistant cases where standard therapies have failed, provided its experimental status and uncertain efficacy are clearly explained. Larger, well-designed RCTs with objective endpoints, along with N-of-1 approaches to identify potential responders, are needed to clarify its true clinical value.
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.