MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412034804 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf133.060

3073 Review of the effectiveness of transdermal lidocaine for osteoarthritic pain

2025· article· en· W4412034804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence J. Mulligan

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineTransdermalOsteoarthritisTransdermal patchAnesthesiaPharmacologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction About 73% of people living with osteoarthritis are older than 55 years. Osteoarthritis can greatly reduce the quality of life. While surgical interventions (including joint replacement) present one approach to advanced and disabling osteoarthritis, non-surgical interventions help people living with the condition to manage pain and maintain optimal levels of functioning. Pharmacological options should be used in combination with non-pharmacological measures at the lowest effective dose for the shortest period of time possible. Lidocaine 5% plasters are used off licence in clinical practice to treat chronic pain, and pain from osteoarthritis. The lidocaine contained in the medicated plaster diffuses continuously into the skin, providing a local analgesic effect. The low systemic exposure to lidocaine following use of the lidocaine patch 5% is particularly beneficial for patients with polypharmacy, or for patients who have low tolerance for systemic analgesics. The aim of this review was to examine the current evidence for using transdermal lidocaine patch in managing pain from osteoarthritis. Method A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases to identify studies that assessed the effectiveness of transdermal lidocaine in osteoarthritis. Reference lists of included studies were also reviewed. Results 6 studies were included in the review, with a total of 359 patients. 3 studies used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and showed significant improvement from baseline with use of 5% lidocaine patch in WOMAC pain scores (p < 0.01), and 1 study showed significant improvement all 4 Neuropathic Pain Scale composite measures (p < 0.001). 3 studies were included in a meta-analysis. This showed a significant improvement across pain, stiffness and physical function on WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Conclusion Although these studies included small numbers, they have shown a positive effect. Geriatric patients are more likely to have co-morbidities, frailty and polypharmacy which would prevent surgical/systemic pharmacological interventions. Further trials in this area would be beneficial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207