Patient-reported Outcomes in Subjects with Neuropathic Pain Receiving Pregabalin: Evidence from Medical Practice in Primary Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of pregabalin on different patient-reported outcomes in subjects with neuropathic pain treated under usual medical practice conditions in primary care settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 12-week, multicenter, naturalistic, and prospective study on 18 years of age or older patients of both genders with chronic pain (of at least 6 months) due to diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic, or trigeminal neuralgia refractory to the previous analgesic treatment (at least one drug). SUBJECTS: Assessed at baseline and end of the study visits by the following questionnaires: Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Sheehan Disability Inventory, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and EQ-5D. RESULTS: The analysis included 1,354 patients not previously exposed to pregabalin; 598 patients (44%) received monotherapy with pregabalin as a substitute of the previous treatment, in 589 patients (44%) pregabalin was added to the existing therapy, and the treatment schedule of the other 167 patients (12%) did not include pregabalin. After 12 weeks of treatment, significant improvements in all effectiveness assessments were observed in all of the three groups, these being significantly greater in the groups receiving pregabalin, with large effect sizes in most health outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Under usual medical practice conditions, patients with chronic pain of peripheral neuropathic origin receiving pregabalin both in monotherapy and as add-on therapy showed substantial improvements in severity of pain and in the spectrum of associated symptoms, such as sleep disturbances, mood disorders, disability, and health-related quality of life. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".