SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Comparative efficacy of arthrocentesis combined with different drug injections for arthrogenic temporomandibular disorders: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of intra articular injectable agents following arthrocentesis for arthrogenous TMDs and assess evidence certainty using GRADE.
methodsSystematic searches of 6 databases up to July 9, 2025 identified RCTs comparing injectable agents after arthrocentesis. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and evidence certainty with CINeMA/GRADE. Network meta analyses were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months for pain (VAS) and MMO.
resultsNineteen RCTs (783 patients) were included. For VAS, iPRF was associated with greater pain reduction than placebo at 1 month (MD = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.21), 3 months (MD = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.66 to 2.52), and 12 months (MD = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.14 to 3.07), though confidence intervals were wide and the 12 month estimate barely reached significance. PRP showed a similar benefit at 3 months. For MMO, only high molecular weight HA was associated with improvement at 6 months vs placebo (MD = -8.07, 95% CI: -11.14 to -5.00) and PRP (MD = 5.62, 95% CI: 2.78 to 8.45).
conclusionsiPRF showed statistically significant pain reduction at 1, 3, and 12 months, but the clinical importance remains uncertain given marginal effect sizes and wide confidence intervals.
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.