A comparative study on efficacy and safety of tablet duloxetine 60 mg and tablet gabapentin 300 mg among patients with diabetic polyneuropathy – A randomized double-blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is defined as the presence of symptoms and signs of peripheral nerve damage among patients with diabetes, after ruling out other potential causes. Diabetic neuropathies are one among the most common long-term complications of diabetes. About 60% of diabetic patients are affected by neuropathy. Aim and Objectives: This study aims to study the efficacy and safety of tablet duloxetine 60 mg and tablet gabapentin 300 mg among patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Materials and Methods: This study was randomized, comparative, double-blind parallel group study which was conducted for a period of 6 months. Sixty patients with diabetic polyneuropathic pain were randomly allocated into two groups. One group received duloxetine 60 mg and other group received gabapentin 300 mg. Efficacy was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS), short form of McGill pain questionnaire, and patients global impression of change score. Safety was assessed using adverse drug reaction profile. Results: In the duloxetine group, the mean VAS score at the baseline was 54.97 ± 6.75, and at 3 months, it was 20.07 ± 5.32 which was statistically significant. In the gabapentin group, the mean score at baseline was 53.57 ± 7.85, and at 3 months, it was 26.57 ± 4.39 which was also statistically significant. The difference between the baseline and 3rd month mean McGill score in both groups was statistically significant. Conclusions: We found that both duloxetine 60 mg once daily and gabapentin 300 mg once daily are effective in the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathic pain. However, duloxetine 60 mg once daily is more efficacious than gabapentin 300 mg once daily in the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain. Both the drugs are well tolerated but gabapentin is better tolerated than duloxetine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".