ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Approaches to Occipital Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Case Examples.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a debilitating craniofacial pain disorder characterized by paroxysmal pain in the distribution of the greater, lesser, or third occipital nerves. Despite a growing array of interventions, clinical decision-making remains highly variable, with no standardized algorithm to guide diagnostic evaluation, procedural selection, or treatment escalation. Our objective was to synthesize the existing literature on ON management. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from 2000 to 2025. Studies were assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles), and AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tools. A narrative synthesis was performed, and studies with decision frameworks were compared against our clinical approach. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 systematic reviews and 7 narrative reviews or guidelines. Most included diagnostic nerve blocks, decompression, neurectomy, and peripheral nerve stimulation; however, only a minority proposed structured algorithms. Our proposed framework integrates botulinum toxin stratification, nerve block response, imaging, and intraoperative findings to guide decompression versus neurectomy. A secondary escalation pathway addresses early versus late surgical failure and neuromodulation treatments. Conclusions: This review highlighted the need for unified, evidence-informed decision-making in ON. Our clinical approach offered a structured, patient-specific framework to guide diagnosis, treatment, and escalation, addressing key gaps in current practice.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.