MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309514853 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnac182

Efficacy of Duloxetine in Patients with Central Post-stroke Pain: A Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4309514853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bandari Mahesh, Varun Kumar Singh, Abhishek Pathak, Anand Kumar, Vijaya Nath Mishra, Deepika Joshi, Rameshwar Nath Chaurasia

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineMedicinePlaceboBrief Pain InventoryAnesthesiaNeuropathic painRandomized controlled trialClinical Global ImpressionRandomizationDuloxetine HydrochlorideInternal medicinePhysical therapyChronic pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) refers to neuropathic pain in areas of the body corresponding to stroke lesions. Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is safe and effective against neuropathic pain. In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, we studied the effect of duloxetine in CPSP patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study and were randomized in a simple 1:1 randomization to duloxetine and placebo groups. Baseline demographic, clinical and imaging data were obtained. Prespecified primary outcome was comparison of change in pain intensity from baseline to 4 weeks, as assessed on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) in both groups. Prespecified secondary outcomes were comparison of change in average pain severity from baseline to 4 weeks as measured on Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SFMPQ-2) score and Pain Disability Index (PDI) score and comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score at the end of 4 weeks of treatment in both groups. Duloxetine at doses of 30 mg and similarly appearing placebo tablets were given and the dose was doubled if there was no response at the end of 2 weeks. Response to treatment was defined as ≥2 points reduction of NRS pain score. RESULTS: In total, 82 patients were enrolled in the study, 41 in each group. There was a significant difference in reduction in NRS score between duloxetine and placebo group from baseline (6.51 ± 1.03 vs 6.37 ± 1.41) to 4 weeks (3.02 ± 1.70 vs 4.40 ± 1.77, P = .02 for difference in reduction between groups). SFMPQ-2 score (P = .032) and Pain Disability Index score (P = .005) also differ significantly from baseline to 4 weeks between the two groups. PGIC score at the end of 4 weeks was significantly different between the two groups (5.15 ± 1.54 vs 3.89 ± 1.51; P < .001). Responder rate (defined as % of patients with ≥ 2 points reduction on NRS pain score from baseline to end of 4 weeks), on post hoc analysis was found to be significantly higher in duloxetine group (80.5%) than placebo group (43.9%) (P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine can be an effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe central post-stroke 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207