MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414623589 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnaf130

Topical analgesics for neuropathic pain: an evidence-informed guide for the practicing clinician

2025· article· en· W4414623589 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin F. Lawson, Priyanka Singla, Jeremy Adler, Charles E. Argoff, Jeffrey Bettinger, Arun Bhaskar, Hance Clarke, Anthony Eidelman, Salman Hirani, W. Michael Hooten, Jordan Tishler, Mark S. Wallace, Antje M. Barreveld

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, DavisNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsNeuropathic painMEDLINEGrading (engineering)Alternative medicineNeuralgiaEvidence-based medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate available evidence for the efficacy and safety of topical analgesics for neuropathic pain and to offer treatment guidance. METHODS: An expert panel searched PubMed (Medline) and reference lists of published articles for available literature assessing 8 categories of topical analgesics used to treat various neuropathic pain conditions. The panel rated the level of analgesic efficacy evidence for each treatment and considered safety, ease of use, and cost. The degree of consensus on the recommendations among the panelists was measured. RESULTS: There was strong evidence and high consensus that capsaicin 8% is effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia and that lidocaine is effective for postherpetic neuralgia. There was strong evidence and moderate consensus that capsaicin 8% could be effective for HIV-induced neuropathy. There was moderate evidence and high consensus that lidocaine is likely effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, idiopathic neuropathy, and postsurgical neuropathy and that capsaicin 8% might be effective for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and complex regional pain syndrome. Evidence was weak for other topical medications, though the panel strongly agreed that antidepressants might help with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, postsurgical neuropathy, and post-traumatic neuropathy; that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could help with postsurgical neuropathy; and that gabapentin might benefit vulvodynia. There was less agreement about whether antidepressants might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, and vulvodynia and whether capsaicin 8% could be effective for postsurgical neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations were based on a survey and grading of existing literature and, when strong evidence was lacking, the collective clinical expertise of panelists.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.011

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207