Methadone in the Management of Intractable Neuropathic Noncancer Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of methadone in the management of intractable neuropathic noncancer pain. METHODS: A case series of 50 consecutive noncancer pain patients who were seen at a tertiary care centre and treated with oral methadone for a variety of intractable neuropathic pain states. RESULTS: The mean age was 52.7 years and the mean duration of follow-up was 13.9 months. Post-discectomy nerve root fibrosis, complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathy and central spinal cord pain syndromes were the most common diagnoses. Over 90% had been treated with one or more tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants and a similar number had received other adjuvant analgesics. All patients had failed treatment with one or more conventional opioid analgesics (mean 2.8) at a mean maximal morphine dose of 384 mg (or equivalents) per day. Twelve patients had failed spinal cord stimulation. Nineteen patients (38%) did not tolerate initial methadone titration or thought their pain was worse on methadone. Five patients (10%) declared initial benefit but required repetitive dose escalation and eventually became non-responders. Twenty-six patients (52%) reported mild (4), moderate (15), marked (6) or complete (1) pain relief and continued on methadone at a mean maintenance dose of 159.8 mg/day for a mean duration of 21.3 months. Fourteen patients (28%) reported improved function on methadone relative to previous treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Methadone appears to have unique properties including N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist activity that may make it especially useful in the management of intractable neuropathic pain. This observation needs to be tested in randomized, controlled trials.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".