MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383711360 · doi:10.1080/10790268.2023.2218186

The effect of neuropathic pain treatments on pain interference following spinal cord injury: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4383711360 on OpenAlexafffund
David J. Allison, Jessica Ahrens, Magdalena Mirkowski, Swati Mehta, Eldon Loh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research Institute
FundersOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
KeywordsMedicineNeuropathic painSpinal cord injurySystematic reviewAnesthesiaSpinal cordPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Neuropathic pain is a common and debilitating condition following SCI. While treatments for neuropathic pain intensity have been reviewed, the impact on pain interference has not been summarized.Objective To systematically review the effect of neuropathic pain interventions on pain interference in individuals with spinal cord injury.Methods This systematic review included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental (non-randomized) studies which assessed the impact of an intervention on pain interference in individuals with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain. Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE (1996 to April 11, 2022), EMBASE (1996 to April 11, 2022), PsycInfo (1987 to April, week 2, 2022). Studies were assessed for methodologic quality using a modified GRADE approach and were given quality of evidence (QOE) scores on a 4-point scale ranging from very low to high.Results Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies fell into the following categories: anticonvulsants (n = 2), antidepressants (n = 1), analgesics (n = 1), antispasmodics (n = 1), acupuncture (n = 2), transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 1), active cranial electrotherapy stimulation (n = 2), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 2), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (n = 1), functional electrical stimulation (n = 1), meditation and imagery (n = 1), self-hypnosis and biofeedback (n = 1), and interdisciplinary pain programs (n = 4).Conclusion When considering studies of moderate to high quality, pregabalin, gabapentin, intrathecal baclofen, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (in 1 of 2 studies) were shown to have beneficial effects on pain interference. However, due to the low number of high-quality studies further research is required to confirm the efficacy of these interventions prior to recommending their use to reduce pain interference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207