SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of 11 Drugs as Therapies for Adults With Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Bayesian Network Analysis Based on 20 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional spine therapy for neuropathic pain in individuals with paraplegia.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Role of Cav2.3 (R-type) Calcium Channel in Pain and Analgesia: A Scoping Review.Current neuropharmacology · 2024Article
- Current Opinions about the Use of Duloxetine: Results from a Survey Aimed at Psychiatrists.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Pregabalin for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy: background and rationale for further study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Review
- Future Treatment of Neuropathic Pain in Spinal Cord Injury: The Challenges of Nanomedicine, Supplements or Opportunities?Biomedicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To provide an updated analysis of the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) based on Bayesian network analysis. Methods: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of literature searches within PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception to February 21 2021 was conducted without language restrictions. Paired and network meta-analyses of random effects were used to estimate the total standardized mean deviations (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). Results: A total of 1,133 citations were identified and 20 RCTs (including 1,198 patients) involving 11 drugs and placebos for post-SCI NP selected. The 5 outcomes from all 11 drugs and placebos had no inconsistencies after Bayesian network analysis. BTX-A gave the most effective pain relief for the 4 weeks, following a primary outcome. No significant differences were found among drugs with regard to adverse events of the primary outcome. Gabapentin, BTX-A, and pregabalin were found to be the most helpful in relieving secondary outcomes of mental or sleep-related symptoms with differences in SMDs, ranging from -0.63 to -0.86. Tramadol triggered more serious adverse events than any of the other drugs with differences in ORs ranging from 0.09 to 0.11. Conclusion: BTX-A, gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, ketamine, lamotrigine, and duloxetine were all effective for NP management following SCI. Lamotrigine and gabapentin caused fewer side effects and had better efficacy in relieving mental or sleep-related symptoms caused by SCI-related NP. Tramadol, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and cannabinoids could not be recommended due to inferior safety or efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: [https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-7-0061/], identifier [INPLASY202070061].
Indexed as
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.