ReviewPain and therapy2026
Improving Clinical Trial Design in Low Back Pain: Insights from Studies of Gabapentinoids.
Review in Pain and therapy, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, affecting hundreds of millions of people globally. Scientific literature continues to highlight key issues in managing these patients, including accuracy of diagnostic terminology, identification of the specific pain mechanisms, and lack of effective licensed treatment options. Using published clinical trials of gabapentinoids to provide insights, we discuss key methodological and clinical factors, such as the accurate use of terminology, appropriate patient selection, effective application of screening tools, and mechanism-based selection of medicines at therapeutic doses. It is important to select a patient population appropriately for the specific pain mechanism treated by the medicine under assessment. Current evidence suggests that identification of a neuropathic component in clinical trials is often inadequate, with many studies either failing to use available validated screening tools or applying them without sufficient methodological rigor. Alongside this, spontaneous resolution of acute pain in low back patients remains an important confounder that is often not thoroughly accounted for. Patients with LBP represent a highly heterogeneous group, and the potential disconnect between diagnosis and mechanism is not helped by older nonspecific terminology. The clinical community continues to improve the terminology, such as the recent International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of "spine-related leg pain" updating the older diagnosis of "sciatica." Defining or further stratifying a patient population (for example, using neuropathic screening tool scores) and then evaluating multiple treatments effective for nociceptive or neuropathic pain may improve a study's discriminatory power while reducing the number of patients required. Once initial drug efficacy has been established in randomized, placebo-controlled trials, additional study designs targeting specific patient populations can still provide valuable insight into key clinical questions, often requiring substantially fewer resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42730861What 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.