Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42757057›Full record

ArticlePain reports2026

A multimodal manual therapy, exercise, and psychological intervention for painful diabetic neuropathy: the NeuOst feasibility randomised controlled trial.

David Hohenschurz-Schmidt, Whitney Scott, Annina B Schmid, Suzie Cro, Philip Bright, Jerry Draper-Rodi, David W Evans, Matthew C Evans, Harriet Kemp, Nuno Koch Esteves and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

David Hohenschurz-SchmidtImperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1964-6069
Whitney ScottINPUT Pain Management Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2529-9083
Annina B SchmidNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7759-0211
Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-1173
Philip BrightUCO School of Osteopathy, Health Sciences University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5339-8281
Jerry Draper-RodiUCO School of Osteopathy, Health Sciences University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1900-6141
David W EvansSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9073-5558
Matthew C EvansDivision of Anaesthetics Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1016-3228
Harriet KempDivision of Anaesthetics Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5657-3009
Nuno Koch EstevesTHERMOSENSELAB, Skin Sensing, Research Group, School of Health Sciences, The University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0580-7642
Elizabeth PigottPatient Partner, London, United Kingdom.
Sasha SmithSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-5368
Siobhan StynesSchool of Medicine, Keele University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5117-9034
Sam TanUCO School of Osteopathy, Health Sciences University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5567-5108
Jan VollertDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0733-5201
Jan D WandreyDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4470-6393
Esther WilliamsonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-0406
Esther M Pogatzki-ZahnDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0981-3940
Andrew S C RiceDivision of Anaesthetics Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9533-5636
Steven VogelUCO School of Osteopathy, Health Sciences University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8597-575X

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: People with painful diabetic neuropathy lack effective and tolerable treatments. Physical and psychological interventions may help but require further study and combination to maximise effects. Objectives: This single-site, 3-arm, parallel, randomised feasibility trial tested whether a multimodal intervention combining manual therapy, exercise, and psychologically informed conversations ("NeuOst") was feasible, and a full-scale trial possible. Methods: Adults with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomised 1:1:1 to either (1) 5 individual sessions of NeuOst, (2) 5 sessions of a high-similarity control intervention with the same osteopaths, or (3) usual care. Allocation was computer-generated, and blinding was intended for assessors, research and administrative staff, and participants receiving NeuOst or the high-similarity control intervention. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using predefined criteria. Exploratory clinical outcomes included pain, disability, and quality of life, collected up to 16 weeks post-randomisation. Results: Thirty-six participants were randomised; targets were met for eligibility (64%), consent (88%), retention (89%), blinding, fidelity, data completeness, and acceptability. Mean NeuOst session attendance was 82%, and satisfaction was high (mean 4.8/5). No serious adverse reactions occurred. Minor adverse responses were reported by 25% of NeuOst and 42% of control intervention participants. Recruitment rates indicated that modified procedures would be needed for a larger trial. Clinical outcomes were uncertain compared with control and promising compared with usual care. Conclusion: The NeuOst intervention was safe, acceptable, and feasible. The trial design proved largely workable, with areas for refinement identified. Findings support progression to an effectiveness trial.

Indexed as

Chronic painDiabetic neuropathiesMind-body therapiesMusculoskeletal manipulationsRandomised controlled trialsRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID42757057
PMCPMC13585324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.