WITHDRAWN: XXXX for acute and @entity1118 .

@entity1 @entity2682 @entity5 @entity3949 @entity5011 @entity158 @entity1118 @entity9
BACKGROUND: February 2009: The authors are aware of unpublished trial data for @entity2682 which could affect the results of this review. This information together with that from trials published since 2005, will be considered when this review is updated in 2009.Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of @entity158 since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic @entity9 , especially when the @entity158 is lancinating or burning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of @entity2682 for @entity158 management in clinical practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials of @entity2682 in acute, chronic or @entity5 were identified by MEDLINE (1966 to Nov 2004), EMBASE (1994 to Nov 2004), SIGLE (1980 to Jan 2004) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004). Additional studies were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: January 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of @entity2682 in @entity1 with subjective @entity158 assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen reports describing 15 studies of @entity2682 were considered eligible (1468 @entity1 ). One was a study of acute @entity158 . The remainder included the following conditions: post-herpetic @entity9 (two studies), @entity3949 (seven studies), a @entity5 related @entity9 (one study) phantom @entity158 (one study), @entity5011 (one study), spinal chord @entity158 (one study) and various @entity9 (one study).The study in acute post-operative @entity158 (70 @entity1 ) showed no benefit for @entity2682 compared to placebo for @entity158 at rest.In @entity1118 , the NNT for improvement in all trials with evaluable data is 4.3 (95% CI 3.5 to 5.7). Forty two percent of @entity1 improved on @entity2682 compared to 19% on placebo. The number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse events leading to withdrawal from a trial was not significant. Fourteen percent of @entity1 withdrew from active arms compared to 10% in placebo arms. The NNH for minor harm was 3.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 5.4). The NNT for effective @entity158 relief in @entity3949 was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.3) and for post herpetic @entity9 3.9 (95% CI 3 to 5.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to show that @entity2682 is effective in @entity9 . There is limited evidence to show that @entity2682 is ineffective in acute @entity158 .
