A systematic review of the efficacy of ketamine for craniofacial pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, can reverse central sensitization associated with causation and propagation of CFP. This systematic review aims to assess the role of ketamine for CFP. Methods: Databases were searched for studies published up to September 26, 2022, investigating the efficacy of ketamine for adults with CFP. Primary outcome was the change in pain intensity at 60 min postintervention. Two reviewers screened and extracted data. Registration with PROSPERO was performed (CRD42020178649). Results: Twenty papers (six randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 14 observational studies) including 670 patients were identified. Substantial heterogeneity in terms of study design, population, dose, route of administration, treatment duration, and follow-up was noted. Bolus dose ranged from 0.2-0.3 mg/kg (intravenous) to 0.4 mg/kg (intramuscular) to 0.25-0.75 mg/kg (intranasal). Ketamine infusions (0.1-1 mg/kg/h) were given over various durations. Follow-up was short in RCTs (from 60 min to 72 h) but longer in observational studies (up to 18 months). Ketamine by bolus treatment failed to reduce migraine intensity but had an effect by reducing intensity of aura, cluster headache (CH), and trigeminal neuralgia. Prolonged ketamine infusions showed sustainable reduction of migraine intensity and frequency of CH attacks, but the quality of the evidence is low. Conclusion: Current evidence remains conflicting on the efficacy of ketamine for CFP owing to low quality and heterogeneity across studies. Ketamine infusions are suggested to provide sustained improvement, possibly because of prolonged duration and higher dosage of administration. RCTs should focus on the dose-response relationship of prolonged ketamine infusions on CFP.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".