Effectiveness of topical gabapentin cream in treating pruritus in dialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug that alleviates neuropathic pain. Its oral use reduces the intensity of pruritus in patients receiving chronic dialysis therapy. However, it could lead to toxicity because of the patients' renal deficiency. In this study, we assessed the use of gabapentin topical in treating pruritus in dialysis patients. METHODS: This randomized, triple-blinded trial was performed on 80 patients divided into two groups randomly (40 in each group). In intervention group, 92.5% of the patients were on hemodialysis. Patients in intervention and control groups were provided with 5% gabapentin and placebo topical creams every 2 weeks for a month. Both Visual Analog Scale and 12-item Pruritus Severity Score questionnaire were used to evaluate itching intensity and score before treatment, a month, and 2 months after starting treatment in both groups. In addition, the effect of itching on quality of life was investigated with the same questionnaire. FINDINGS: Eighty patients (40 in each group) participated in our study. No complication was found in our intervention group. Itching score significantly decreased after a month and 2 months of follow-up in intervention group (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Our results showed that 5% gabapentin topical cream can be effective in reducing itching in different areas of the body. None of our patients reported complications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".