Patients′ Attitudes and Prior Treatments in Neuropathic Pain: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ongoing research continues to expand the knowledge of neuropathic pain. It is vital that established treatments and valuable discoveries ultimately improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: Attitudes and prior treatments of patients being screened for neuropathic pain trials were evaluated to provide further understanding of the barriers to the management of neuropathic pain. METHODS: A questionnaire was completed by patients with neuropathic pain who were either referred by local physicians or self referred in response to clinical trial advertisements from the authors' facility. RESULTS: In total, 151 patients completed the questionnaire. Diagnoses included diabetic neuropathy (55.6%), postherpetic neuralgia (29.8%), idiopathic peripheral neuropathy (9.3%) and others (5.3%). The mean pain duration was 4.7 years, and the mean daily pain (on a score of 0 to 10) was 7.6. During questioning, 72.8% complained of inadequate pain control and 25.2% had never tried any antineuropathic analgesics (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids or anticonvulsants). New antineuropathic analgesics (eg, gabapentin) were being used by only 16.6%. Opioids, tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants had never been tried by 41.1%, 59.6% and 72.2%, respectively. Fears of addiction and adverse effects were expressed by 31.8% and 48.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: New, and even conventional, therapies are often not pursued, despite inadequate pain control. Several issues are discussed, including patient barriers to seeking pain management, patient and physician barriers to analgesic drug therapy, and appropriate use of and access to multidisciplinary pain centres. Failure to implement therapeutic advances in pain management not only hinders improvement in patient care, but also may render futile decades of research. Widespread professional, patient and public education, as well as continued interdisciplinary research on treatment barriers, is essential.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".