Systematic ReviewTreatment: PharmacologicalSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

There is not enough good-quality evidence to show that gabapentin or pregabalin reliably help chronic low back pain that does not involve nerve (nerve-root) pain.

Bottom line

Quality evidence to support pregabalin or gabapentin for chronic low back pain without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking; pregabalin was not superior to other analgesics, while gabapentin showed mixed results that may suggest it as a viable option pending more research.

Preliminary evidence

Published

2023
3 years ago
Current

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis
Systematic Review ◀ this study
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

242 included participants across 5 randomized controlled trials (from 2,230 articles screened)Mean ages ranged from 41.5 to 72.5 years across studiesProportion of male patients ranged from about 44% to 79% across the included trials

Adults aged 18 and older with chronic low back pain (at least 2 months) without radiculopathy or neuropathy

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review examined whether the antiepileptic-derived drugs gabapentin and pregabalin are effective and safe for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who do NOT have radiculopathy or neuropathy. From 2,230 articles screened, only 5 randomized controlled trials (242 included participants) met criteria, and just one trial studied a "pure" non-radicular sample. Pregabalin was slightly less effective than comparator drugs (amitriptyline, tramadol/acetaminophen, celecoxib), and adding pregabalin to celecoxib gave no benefit over celecoxib alone (all very low certainty evidence). Gabapentin findings were mixed: one trial showed a modest reduction in pain and improved mobility (moderate certainty), while another in a broader population showed no advantage over placebo; no serious adverse events occurred in any study, though gabapentin caused more adverse events than placebo.

55/100
Evidence StrengthModerate
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Very limited eligible evidence existsHigh

Of 2,230 articles identified, only 5 randomized controlled trials qualified, contributing 242 included participants. Only one trial (McCleane, 2000) had a sample composed entirely of patients with non-radicular, non-neuropathic CLBP; for the others, only data subgroups could be used.

Pregabalin was not superior to comparator drugsHigh

In no comparison was pregabalin monotherapy superior to its comparator for pain relief, and it was sometimes inferior to amitriptyline (50% pain reduction in 32.6% vs 53.2%; reduction in Oswestry Disability Index >20% in 39.1% vs 65.96%, p=0.01) and slower to act than tramadol/acetaminophen. All such results were graded very low certainty.

Adding pregabalin to celecoxib gave no extra benefitMedium

Romanò et al. found the pregabalin/celecoxib combination was not superior to celecoxib alone for pain reduction (VAS mean 45.1 to 32.9 vs 43.8 to 32.5; p=0.9, very low certainty).

Gabapentin results were mixed but one trial was favorableHigh

McCleane (2000), the only pure-sample trial, found a subtle pain reduction on a 0-10 verbal numeric scale during gabapentin use (7.10 to 6.39; p<0.05) and improved mobility (4.65 to 5.46; p<0.01), both moderate certainty (GRADE). Atkinson et al. found pain fell in both gabapentin and placebo groups with no significant between-group difference.

No serious adverse events, but gabapentin caused more adverse events than placeboMedium

No serious adverse events were reported in any study. A meta-analysis of two gabapentin-vs-placebo trials showed more adverse events with gabapentin (risk ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.20-1.91; p=0.0004).

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review (with one small meta-analysis of adverse events) following the Cochrane Handbook; risk of bias assessed with Cochrane RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE
Sample Size
5 randomized controlled trials; 242 included participants (drawn from trials of 20-93 eligible patients each)
Duration
Trial follow-up ranged from 4 to 14 weeks; databases searched for articles published up to August 20, 2022
Population
Adults (18+) with chronic low back pain or back pain (at least 2 months) without radiculopathy or neuropathy; pregnant women, surgical/interventional candidates, significant cognitive impairment, and pain from pathological causes (infection, neoplasm, fracture, trauma, etc.) were excluded
Outcome Measures
Participant-reported 50% or greater reduction in pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale) · 0-10 verbal numeric rating scale / Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS) · Functional improvement via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) · Proportion of participants with adverse events / serious adverse events

Strengths

  • Comprehensive, multi-database search (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science) with no language restriction, plus manual reference and trial-protocol searches
  • Pre-registered protocol and methodology aligned with the Cochrane Handbook
  • Standardized appraisal using Cochrane RoB 2 and GRADE certainty grading
  • Careful focus on the non-radicular/non-neuropathic subpopulation, extracting only relevant subgroups where possible

Limitations

  • Only 5 small trials (242 participants) met criteria, and just one had a pure non-radicular sample; for the others only population subgroups could be used, compromising applicability
  • Most results were graded very low certainty on GRADE; only two outcomes in one trial reached moderate certainty
  • Trials were clinically heterogeneous (different drugs, comparators, populations, and 4-14 week follow-ups), preventing pooled efficacy meta-analysis
  • Grey literature was not searched, raising risk of non-reporting/publication bias
  • Initial screening and data extraction/risk-of-bias assessment were each done by a single reviewer, increasing risk of human error

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01For ordinary (non-nerve-related) chronic low back pain, there is little high-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin reliably reduces pain.
  2. 02Pregabalin did not outperform other commonly used pain medicines (such as amitriptyline, tramadol/acetaminophen, or celecoxib) in these studies, and adding it to celecoxib gave no extra benefit.
  3. 03Gabapentin showed mixed results: one study suggested a modest improvement in pain and mobility, but another found it no better than a placebo.
  4. 04No serious side effects occurred in any of the studies, but gabapentin caused more minor-to-moderate side effects than placebo, so the risks and benefits should be weighed with your clinician.
  5. 05The evidence base is very small and uncertain, so these drugs should not be assumed to work for low back pain that does not involve nerve (radicular/neuropathic) pain.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkNarrative Review

Pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia: an update

Yang Li et al.·Frontiers in Pharmacology·2025

A 2025 narrative review concluding that current fibromyalgia drugs help only a minority of patients and should be used as part of an individualized, multimodal plan alongside exercise, education, and psychological support.

PharmacologicalRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liu et al.·International Journal of Surgery·2024

Network meta-analysis of 40 RCTs found manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy most effective for reducing pain and disability in myofascial pain syndrome. These three treatments showed benefits across pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and functional outcomes comp

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →