ArticlePain reports2026
A multimodal manual therapy, exercise, and psychological intervention for painful diabetic neuropathy: the NeuOst feasibility randomised controlled trial.
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.
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
20 authors.
Funding
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
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.