Skip to main content
. 2023 May 10;2023(5):CD014682. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014682.pub2

Tasmuth 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods Design: cross‐over
Duration: cross‐over periods were 4 weeks
Assessment: baseline and post‐cross‐over period
Country: Finland
Participants Pain condition: neuropathic pain following breast cancer treatment
Population: women with neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer
Minimum pain intensity: moderate severity (no numerical scale)
Inclusion criteria
  • Neuropathic pain after treatment for breast cancer. The pain had to be in the anterior chest wall and/or axilla and/or median upper arm in an area with sensory disturbances.

  • The pain had to be at least moderate in severity.


Exclusion criteria
  • Free of relapses or metastases of the breast cancer and free from clinically overt cardiac, renal or hepatic disease


Total participants randomised: 15
Age in years (mean, range): 55 (37‐72)
Gender: 15/15 were female
Pain duration in months (mean, range): 20 (18‐26)
Interventions Placebo
  • Inert

  • Matched dosing


Venlafaxine ≤ 75 mg
  • SNRI

  • Flexible titration to highest possible dose: dose was increased by 18.75 mg every week to the highest tolerable dose or ceiling (75 mg)

Outcomes The study provided no useable data
Missing data methods NR
Funding source Non‐pharmacetucal: financial support was received from the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Funds.
Conflicts of interest NR
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Hospital pharmacy performed the randomisation using computer‐generated numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk States that hospital pharmacy performed randomisation but not how this was allocated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk States double‐blind, matched dosing, but no information regarding appearance of study drugs
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Self‐reported outcomes by blinded participants, but unsure of blinding methods
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Low attrition, but not explained fully (i.e. during which period dropout happened)
Attrition
Total: 2/15 (13.3%)
Attrition per arm NR
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol or trial registration found
Other bias Low risk No other sources of bias were identified.