Topical Amitriptyline Versus Lidocaine in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oral amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, is effective for treating neuropathic pain. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study to evaluate the efficacy of topical 5% amitriptyline and 5% lidocaine in treating patients with neuropathic pain. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with postsurgical neuropathic pain, postherpetic neuralgia, or diabetic neuropathy with allodynia or hyperalgesia were assigned to receive 3 topical creams (5% amitriptyline, 5% lidocaine, or placebo) in random sequence. The primary outcome measure was change in pain intensity (baseline vs. posttreatment average pain) using a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analog Scale. Secondary outcome measures included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, requirement for rescue medication, and patient satisfaction. Primary statistical comparisons were made with paired t tests or signed-rank tests. RESULTS: A reduction in pain intensity was observed with topical lidocaine (P<0.05). No significant change in pain intensity was found with topical amitriptyline or placebo. In pairwise comparison of treatments, topical lidocaine and placebo each reduced pain more than topical amitriptyline (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: This randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study examining topical 5% amitriptyline and 5% lidocaine in the treatment of neuropathic pain showed that topical lidocaine reduced pain intensity but the clinical improvement is minimal and that topical 5% amitriptyline was not effective.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| 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".