MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Amitriptyline and fluphenazine in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia. (UCLA Pain Management Center, Los Angeles, CA) <i>Clin J Pain</i> 2000;16:188–192.

2001· article· en· W2057196714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven B. Graff‐Radford, Leon R. Shaw, Bruce N. Naliboff

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Practice · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPlant-based Medicinal Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmitriptylinePostherpetic neuralgiaFluphenazineMedicineAnesthesiaPlaceboAnticholinergicInternal medicineNeuropathic painHaloperidol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled study, 49 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were randomly assigned to 4 treatment groups: Group 1, amitriptyline; Group 2, amitriptyline and fluphenazine; Group 3, fluphenazine; Group 4, a placebo. An active placebo was used to mimic the anticholinergic side effects of dry mouth. The study lasted 8 weeks, with weekly progress evaluations with the use of visual analog scales, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a side‐effects scale. A statistically significant decrease was seen in pain Groups 1 and 2, and no significant changes were seen in Groups 3 and 4. There was no significant difference when fluphenazine was added to amitriptyline. Conclude that these data support the effectiveness of amitriptyline in the treatment of PHN, but do not support the addition of fluphenazine. Comment by Lian‐Kah Ti, M.D. Amitriptyline is an established modality of treatment for postherpetic neuralgia. It is believed to exert its effect by its analgesic properties, rather than its antidepressant effect. It has been shown to raise the pain threshold, brought about by its prevention of serotonin re‐uptake. Although isolated case studies suggested a role for fluphenazine in combination with amitriptyline in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, the authors could not demonstrate this benefit. This study highlights the difficulties in the treatment of this condition. The use of amitriptyline reduced the intensity of pain, but did not eliminate it (VAS scores decreased from 55.9 to 26.6). When MPQ scores were compared, there was no difference, suggesting that the qualitative aspect of the pain was not reduced. More importantly, the authors noted a ceiling effect for amitriptyline, effectively limiting its potency. Combining therapies may be the answer, but as this study clearly shows, a combination with fluphenazine is not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PracticeSame topicPlant-based Medicinal ResearchFrench-language works237,207