Intravenous Therapies in the Management of Neuropathic Pain: A Review on the Use of Ketamine and Lidocaine in Chronic Pain Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropathic Pain is a term referred to "pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion affecting the somatosensory system". As a first line option, oral medications are mostly used, as they are easily available, relatively safe, and do not need much resources. They include antidepressants in the form of tricyclics, newer selective reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, gabapentin, pregabalin etc. Although neuropathic pain conditions do share some common clinical features, they are quite diverse when considered individually according to their etiology and pathogenesis. Hence not all patients and not all types of neuropathic pain respond to such oral therapy. In practice patients are given a form of such neuropathic pain medication along with or without an opioid, depending upon the extent of pain that the patient suffers. Opioids are potent analgesics but are not a good choice for neuropathic pain conditions. With time the clinician is left with fewer alternatives and furthermore, with the the increasing knowledge that escalation of opioid therapy will perhaps lead to hyperalgesia and tolerance, it becomes necessary to explore other options. Among the other options one can always consider to explore treatment with intravenous medication such as Ketamine, Lidocaine, and Magnesium etc. This chapter would highlight the use of ketamine and lidocaine in the form of drug profile, the pharmacological basis behind its use, strategies to use, important side effects and limitations and available evidence base, including a review of randomised controlled studies. Both are considered separately in two different parts. References for both the parts are given at the end, in separate sections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".