Efficacy and Safety of Magnesium for the Management of Chronic Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is a highly prevalent and complex health problem that is associated with a heavy symptom burden, substantial economic and social impact, and also, very few highly effective treatments. This review examines evidence for the efficacy and safety of magnesium in chronic pain. The previously published protocol for this review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched until September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing magnesium (at any dose, frequency, or route of administration) with placebo using participant-reported pain measures. A total of 9 RCTs containing 418 participants were included. Three studies examined neuropathic pain (62 participants), 3 examined migraines (190 participants), 2 examined complex regional pain syndrome (86 participants), and 1 examined low back pain with a neuropathic component (80 participants). Heterogeneity of included studies precluded any meta-analyses. No judgment could be made about safety because adverse events were inconsistently reported in the included studies. Evidence of analgesic efficacy from included studies was equivocal. However, reported efficacy signals in some of the included trials provide a rationale for more definitive studies. Future, larger-sized trials with good assay sensitivity and better safety assessment and reporting, as well as careful attention to formulations with optimal bioavailability, will serve to better define the role of magnesium in the management of chronic pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".