[Pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregabalin is increasingly being used for the treatment ofneuropathic pain, often as the first-line choice. The question is, however, whether this choice is based on evidence. Seven trials have been published on the effect ofpregabalin in patients with postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. These trials more frequently report a 50% reduction in pain in pregabalin treated patients than in patients treated with placebo (number needed to treat 4.3). Dizziness and somnolence are the most frequent adverse events of pregabalin. The number needed to harm for adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment varies from 3.7 to 113.1 in these studies. Pregabalin has not been compared head-to-head with other drugs commonly used for neuropathic pain. Indirect comparison reveals the effectiveness of pregabalin is comparable with that of carbamazepin, tramadol, and gabapentin; pregabalin is possibly less effective than amitriptylin. However, taking into account its price and the lack of clinical experience and evidence, using pregabalin as first-line choice is not recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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".