Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20596259›Full record

ArticleHippokratia2010

A2delta ligands gabapentin and pregabalin: future implications in daily clinical practice.

T G Tzellos, G Papazisis, K A Toulis, Ch Sardeli, D Kouvelas

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hippokratia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T G TzellosDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
G Papazisis
K A Toulis
Ch Sardeli
D Kouvelas
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gabapentin (GP) and pregabalin (PB) are structurally related compounds and their predominant mechanism of action is the inhibition of calcium currents via high-voltage-activated channels containing the a2d-1 subunit. A2delta ligands are approved for the treatment of pain of diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia in adults and as adjunctive therapy of partial seizures in children. Recently, pregabalin has been approved for treatment of anxiety disorders in Europe. Besides their already approved indications both drugs are promising treatment options for a number of different serious and debilitating diseases, as fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain of spinal cord injury, hot flushes, and essential tremor. In the present review, the unique mechanism of action of the above drugs is critically analyzed and evidence for their future use is provided. Gabapentin and pregabalin can be treatment options for these disorders, however, a clear comparison between the two drugs can not be performed, since there is no direct comparison study. The most common side effects are dizziness and somnolence which are also the most frequent reasons for withdrawal. Recommendations for future studies should include assessment of ideal titration period for GP and PB to reduce incidence of somnolence and dizziness and increase tolerability, cost-effectiveness and dose-response analysis of PB and GP and direct comparison of the two drugs.

Indexed as

2δ ligandsgabapentinlyricaneurontinpregabalin

Identifiers

PMID20596259
PMCPMC2895293
OpenAlexW2411442671

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.