Comparative role of pregabalin and carbamazepine regarding efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropathic pain is the most severe and resistant type of pain which has impact on quality of life and behaviour; it most commonly occurs at night causing disturbed sleep. Diabetes mellitus is a common cause of painful neuropathy. In this study, we are comparing the effectiveness of old treatment Carbamazepine with Pregabalin in painful diabetic neuropathy. The study was an open-label trial conducted in Diabetic Clinic of Medical Unit-III, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center, Karachi. The duration of the study was 90 days, from December 2010 to March 2011. The study has been approved from ethical committee of JPMC, Karachi with the reference NO.F.2-81/2010- GENL/195/JPMC. 60 established patients of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from Diabetic Clinic of Medical Unit-III OPD were included in the 90-day study, irrespective of gender, with duration of diabetes more than 10 years. All subjects are placed into two groups. In group A, comprising of 30 patients (n=30), Pregabalin was administered and in group B, also comprising of 30 patients (n=30), Carbamazepine. The intensity of pain was compared on visual analog scale of McGill pain questionnaire. In group A (Pregabalin), the mean pain score fell from 6.17±0.14 to 3.50±0.15 from day 0 to day 90 (p-value=0.001) and the percentage of change also in visual analog scale of McGill pain questionnaire was -43.31%. In group B (Carbamazepine), the changes in pain score from initially 6.07±0.14 falling to 4.23±0.13 from day 0 to day 90 (p-value=0.001) and the percentage of change was -30.31%. Pregabalin was observed to be more potent. Both drugs were well tolerated by all participants that also completed the entire duration of the trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".