Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17187047›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2006

Robust randomised control trials needed for drug treatments for trigeminal neuralgia.

Joanna M Zakrzewska

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanna M ZakrzewskaClinical and Diagnostic Oral Sciences, Dental Institute, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesSearches for appropriate studies were made using the following: Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Register, Medline, Embase and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature on the Health Sciences) together the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System, the database of the Chinese Cochrane Centre, conference paper databases and checked bibliographies. 10 Chinese journals were searched by hand. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-randomised controlled trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors decided which trials fitted the inclusion criteria and graded methodological quality independently.

resultsNine trials of different non-antiepileptic drugs involving 223 participants were included. Each trial investigated one non-antiepileptic drug. Two trials tested baclofen. In one, more people achieved 50% reduction from baseline than with placebo [relative risk (RR), 15.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97-231.84; P 0.05]. In the other, slightly more participants who took baclofen showed a 75% reduction in attacks on the tenth day compared with carbamazepine (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 0.83-6.85; P 0.11). One trial showed no significant difference in reduction in average daily frequency of attacks with Baclofen compared with Racemic Baclofen. Tizanidine was investigated in two trials. In one, the proportion of people with a reduction in the mean number of paroxysms per day increased with tizanidine compared with placebo (RR, 8.00; 95% CI, 1.21-52.69; P 0.03). In the other, one of five participants improved their visual analogue scale score with tizanidine and four of six did so having taken carbamazepine (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-1.89; P 0.20). One study showed that the improvement in mean values of pain scores with tocainide was similar to that of carbamazepine. In a further trial, more participants improved during the pimozide than the carbamazepine period (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28). In another, a 0.5% instillation of proparacaine hydrochloride into the eyes did not produce significantly different results from placebo (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.37-2.99; P 0.92). Finally, there was moderate or marked improvement in a study in seven of nine participants who took clomipramine and three of nine who took amitriptyline during a 12-week treatment (RR, 2.33; 95% CI, 0.87-6.27).

conclusionsTrials of non-antiepileptic drugs for treating trigeminal neuralgia have all been limited by poor methodological quality or poor reporting. There is insufficient evidence from randomised clinical trials to show significant benefit from non-antiepileptic drugs for trigeminal neuralgia.

Identifiers

PMID17187047
OpenAlexW2043915564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.