The Efficacy of Systemic Lidocaine in the Management of Chronic Pain: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite recent advances in the understanding of the chronic pain concept, its diagnosis and management remains a daily challenge for clinicians and patients. Based on the published literature, this review discusses and tries to organize the current knowledge and the up-to-date clinical experience about the efficacy and safety of the use of intravenous lidocaine in treatment and prevention of chronic pain. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: To prepare this narrative review, we performed an in depth literature review using the PubMed searching engine. We extracted all relevant articles published in English, up to April 2016. RESULTS: Lidocaine, administered as transdermal patch or intravenous lidocaine, is a safe and effective modality in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), complex regional pain syndrome, as well and for prevention of chronic pain. It may be effective in the management of neuropathic pain syndromes, chronic pain, post-operative pain, and refractory cancer pain. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lidocaine and lidocaine patch are effective and safe for the treatment of several chronic or neuropathic pain syndromes. The use of lidocaine during surgery could prevent the development of some chronic post-surgical pain syndromes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".