Supplementary Table1 Basic Characteristics and Levels of Evidence of Included Clinical Studies

This dataset is derived from a systematic review on the use of adjuvant agents in nerve blocks or local injections for the treatment of zoster-associated pain. The data generation process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The research team systematically searched five databases—PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform—up to December 31, 2025, with the search period covering the inception of each database to that date. A combination of MeSH terms and free-text words was used as the search strategy. Chinese search terms included “带状疱疹”, “带状疱疹后神经痛”, “神经阻滞”, “局部注射”, “佐剂”, “糖皮质激素”, “A型肉毒毒素”, “富血小板血浆”, “臭氧”, “亚甲蓝”, and “神经妥乐平”. English search terms included “herpes zoster”, “postherpetic neuralgia”, “nerve block”, “local injection”, “adjuvant”, “glucocorticoid”, “botulinum toxin type A”, “platelet-rich plasma”, “ozone”, “methylene blue”, and “neurotropin”. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening and data extraction, with cross-verification; disagreements were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third party. Inclusion criteria were: (1) patients diagnosed with acute herpes zoster or postherpetic neuralgia; (2) interventions involving drugs used as adjuvants in nerve blocks or local injections; and (3) study designs including randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, or case-control studies. Exclusion criteria included case reports, expert opinions, conference abstracts, animal studies, clinical studies without a control group, and duplicate publications. A total of 29 clinical studies were finally included. Data extraction was conducted using a standardized structured form, capturing the first author, publication year, study type, disease stage, sample size, adjuvant type, intervention, control group, outcome measures, and level of evidence. The level of evidence was assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria, with systematic reviews classified as Level A and randomized controlled trials as Level B.The temporal coverage of this dataset ranges from 2008 to 2025, encompassing nearly two decades of key clinical research evidence on adjuvant agents used in nerve blocks or local injections for zoster-associated pain. The dataset does not involve spatial information or spatial resolution. The data are presented in a tabular format, comprising 29 records corresponding to the 29 included clinical studies. The data table contains 10 columns, with the following column labels and meanings: Column 1, “Included literature and authors,” indicates the source and first author of the study; Column 2, “Year,” indicates the publication year; Column 3, “Study type,” indicates the study design (systematic review or randomized controlled trial); Column 4, “Disease stage,” indicates the clinical stage of the study population (e.g., acute stage, subacute stage, postherpetic neuralgia); Column 5, “Sample size,” indicates the total number of patients enrolled in the study; Column 6, “Adjuvant type,” indicates the category of the primary interventional agent; Column 7, “Intervention,” describes the specific intervention in the experimental group; Column 8, “Control group,” describes the intervention in the control group; Column 9, “Outcome measures,” lists the primary outcomes assessed in the study, presented in coded numbers (① pain score, ② sleep quality, ③ analgesic consumption, ④ incidence of postherpetic neuralgia, ⑤ overall response rate, ⑥ quality of life, ⑦ anxiety/depression score, ⑧ skin lesion healing time, ⑨ adverse events, ⑩ immune function), with detailed definitions provided in the table notes; Column 10, “Level of evidence,” indicates the evidence level of the study (Level A or B). Quantitative data such as sample size and patient counts are presented in “cases” as the unit of measurement. Units for indicators such as pain scores and incidence rates were clearly stated in the original literature, and no unit conversion was performed in this dataset.This dataset consists of fully structured extracted tabular data. All fields were directly extracted or standardized from the original literature, and there are no missing data. As the data originate from published academic literature, the original studies themselves may have inherent limitations such as sampling error, measurement bias, or publication bias. However, this dataset merely records and organizes the information from the literature faithfully, without performing secondary calculations or corrections on the original study results; therefore, no additional error is introduced. The dataset is stored as a single tabular file in Microsoft Word (.docx) format, which is suitable for general literature management and data organization purposes, and can be opened and edited using common office software such as Microsoft Office or WPS Office.