Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20577657›Full record

SynthesisPain research & management

A qualitative systematic review of head-to-head randomized controlled trials of oral analgesics in neuropathic pain.

C Peter N Watson, Ian Gilron, Jana Sawynok

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pain research & management. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C Peter N WatsonUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. peter.watson@utoronto.ca
Ian Gilron
Jana Sawynok

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuropathic pain (NP) encompasses many difficult-to-treat disorders. There are few head-to-head, comparative, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for NP in different analgesic categories, or of different drugs within a category, despite many placebo-controlled RCTs for individual agents. Well-designed head-to-head comparative trials are an effective way to determine the relative efficacy and safety of a new drug.

objectiveTo perform a systematic review of head-to-head RCTs of oral analgesics in NP.

methodsA systematic review of RCTs involving NP patients was performed, of which head-to-head comparative trials were selected. Reference lists from published systematic reviews were searched. These studies were rated according to the Jadad scale for quality. RESULTS AND

conclusionsTwenty-seven such trials were identified. Seventeen were comparisons of different analgesics, and 10 were of different drugs within an analgesic class. Important information was obtained about the relative efficacy and safety of drugs in different categories and within a category. Some significant differences between active treatments were reported. Trial inadequacies were identified. More and improved head-to-head RCTs are needed to inform clinical choices.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdministration, OralAnalgesicsDatabases, FactualHumansNeuralgiaPrevalenceAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID20577657
PMCPMC2912616

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.