↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

26 tweeters
3 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


51 Dimensions

Readers on

292 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006380.pub3
Pubmed ID

Maria Jenelyn M Alviar, Tom Hale, Monalisa Lim-Dungca


This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable, and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. There is currently uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP. This review aimed to summarise the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant studies. We ran the searches for the original review in September 2011 and subsequent searches for this update up to April 2016. We sought additional studies from clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved papers. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions compared with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment, in established PLP. We considered the following outcomes: change in pain intensity, function, sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, adverse events, treatment satisfaction, and withdrawals from the study. We independently assessed issues of study quality and extracted efficacy and adverse event data. Due to the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes, but attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures, and methods. We added only one new study with 14 participants to this updated review. We included a 14 studies (10 with low risk of bias and 4 with unclear risk of bias overall) with a total of 269 participants. We added another drug class, botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), in particular botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A), to the group of medications reviewed previously. Our primary outcome was change in pain intensity. Most studies did not report our secondary outcomes of sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or withdrawals from the study.BoNT/A did not improve phantom limb pain intensity during the six months of follow-up compared with lidocaine/methylprednisolone.Compared with placebo, morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short term with reported adverse events being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems.The N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine (versus placebo; versus calcitonin) and dextromethorphan (versus placebo), but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse events of ketamine were more serious than placebo and calcitonin and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety.The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting, but combining the results favoured treatment group (gabapentin) over control group (placebo) (mean difference -1.16, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to -0.38; 2 studies). However, gabapentin did not improve function, depression score, or sleep quality. Adverse events experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea.Compared with an active control benztropine mesylate, amitriptyline was not effective in PLP, with dry mouth and dizziness as the most frequent adverse events based on one study.The findings for calcitonin (versus placebo; versus ketamine) and local anaesthetics (versus placebo) were variable. Adverse events of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes. Since the last version of this review, we identified another study that added another form of medical therapy, BoNTs, specifically BoNT/A, to the list of pharmacologic interventions being reviewed for clinical efficacy in phantom limb pain. However, the results of this study did not substantially change the main conclusions. The short- and long-term effectiveness of BoNT/A, opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and local anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes including pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events remain unclear. Based on a small study, BoNT/A (versus lidocaine/methylprednisolone) does not decrease phantom limb pain. Morphine, gabapentin, and ketamine demonstrate favourable short-term analgesic efficacy compared with placebo. Memantine and amitriptyline may not be effective for PLP. However, results must be interpreted with caution, as they were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, local anaesthetics, and dextromethorphan needs further clarification. Overall, the efficacy evidence for the reviewed medications is thus far inconclusive. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed for us to reach more definitive conclusions about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 282 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 20%
Student > Bachelor 45 15%
Unspecified 40 14%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Other 80 27%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 42%
Unspecified 52 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 11%
Psychology 24 8%
Neuroscience 17 6%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 265,815 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.