↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antidepressants for neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
22 tweeters
1 Facebook page


417 Dimensions

Readers on

333 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Antidepressants for neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005454.pub2
Pubmed ID

Tiina Saarto, Philip J Wiffen


This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2005 of The Cochrane Library. For many years antidepressant drugs have been used to manage neuropathic pain, and are often the first choice treatment. It is not clear, however, which antidepressant is more effective, what role the newer antidepressants can play in treating neuropathic pain, and what adverse effects are experienced by patients. To determine the analgesic effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs in neuropathic pain. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants in neuropathic pain were identified in MEDLINE (1966 to Oct 2005); EMBASE (1980 to Oct 2005); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005; and the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Trials Register (May 2002). Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. RCTs reporting the analgesic effects of antidepressant drugs in adult patients, with subjective assessment of pain of neuropathic origin. Studies that included patients with chronic headache and migraine were excluded. Two review authors agreed the included studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality independently. Sixty one trials of 20 antidepressants were considered eligible (3293 participants) for inclusion. Relative Risk (RR) and Number-Needed-to-Treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness and adverse effects. This update includes 11 additional studies (778 participants). Sixty one RCTs were included in total. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are effective and have an NNT of 3.6 (95% CI 3 to 4.5) RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.5) for the achievement of at least moderate pain relief. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of the newer SSRIs but no studies of SNRIs were found. Venlafaxine (three studies) has an NNT of 3.1 (95% CI 2.2 to 5.1) RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.1). There were insufficient data to assess effectiveness for other antidepressants such as St Johns Wort and L-tryptophan. For diabetic neuropathy the NNT for effectiveness was 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5) RR 12.4 (95% CI 5.2 to 29.2) (five studies); for postherpetic neuralgia 2.7 (95% CI 2 to 4.1), RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.1) (four studies). There was evidence that TCAs are not effective in HIV-related neuropathies. The number needed to harm (NNH) for major adverse effects defined as an event leading to withdrawal from a study was 28 (95% CI 17.6 to 68.9) for amitriptyline and 16.2 (95% CI 8 to 436) for venlafaxine. The NNH for minor adverse effects was 6 (95% CI 4.2 to 10.7) for amitriptyline and 9.6 (95% CI 3.5 to 13) for venlafaxine. This update has provided additional confirmation on the effectiveness of antidepressants for neuropathic pain and has provided new information on another antidepressant - venlafaxine. There is still limited evidence for the role of SSRIs. Whether antidepressants prevent the development of neuropathic pain (pre-emptive use) is still unclear. Both TCAs and venlafaxine have NNTs of approximately three. This means that for approximately every three patients with neuropathic pain who are treated with either of these antidepressants, one will get at least moderate pain relief. There is evidence to suggest that other antidepressants may be effective but numbers of participants are insufficient to calculate robust NNTs. SSRIs are generally better tolerated by patients and more high quality studies are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 322 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 15%
Researcher 47 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 10%
Student > Postgraduate 29 9%
Other 88 26%
Unknown 46 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 156 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 7%
Psychology 21 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 5%
Other 42 13%
Unknown 54 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 120,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.