Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23292213›Full record

SynthesisRheumatology international2013

Non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve pain in inflammatory arthritis (IA): a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials.

Amanda J Steiman, Janet E Pope, Heather Thiessen-Philbrook, Lihua Li, Cheryl Barnabe, Fares Kalache, Tabitha Kung, Louis Bessette, Cathy Flanagan, Boulos Haraoui and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Rheumatology international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Towards an individualised approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Amanda J SteimanDivision of Rheumatology, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, University Health Network, 399 Bathurst Street, Room 1E-420, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8, Canada. amanda.steiman@mail.utoronto.ca
Janet E Pope
Heather Thiessen-Philbrook
Lihua Li
Cheryl Barnabe
Fares Kalache
Tabitha Kung
Louis Bessette
Cathy Flanagan
Boulos Haraoui
Jacqueline Hochman
Sharon Leclercq
Dianne Mosher
Carter Thorne
Vivian Bykerk
University of Calgary · CAWestern University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAHôpital Notre-Dame · CAHospital for Special Surgery · USMontreal General Hospital · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CAUniversité Laval · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence supports early use of non-biologic DMARDs to prevent irreversible damage in inflammatory arthritides, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and possibly ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, there is a paucity of data exploring their effects on pain as a primary outcome in these conditions. This systematic literature review investigated the effect of non-biologic DMARDs on pain levels in IA and examined whether disease duration impacted efficacy. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, abstracts from the 2008 to 2010 American College of Rheumatology annual congresses, and citation lists of retrieved publications. Only randomized, double-blind controlled trials were analyzed. Quality was assessed with the Risk of Bias tool. Descriptive statistics were used in meta-analysis. 9,860 articles were identified, with 33 eligible for inclusion: 8 in AS, 6 in PsA, 9 in early RA (ERA), and 10 in established RA. In ERA and established RA, all studies of DMARDs (monotherapy and combination therapies) consistently revealed statistically significant reductions in pain except three oral gold studies. In AS, sulfasalazine studies showed significant pain reduction, whereas use of other DMARDs did not. In PsA, 5 of 6 studies reported VAS-pain improvement. From the studies included, we were unable to assess the influence of disease duration on pain outcomes in these rheumatic conditions. DMARDs improve pain in early and established RA. Sulfasalazine may improve pain in AS and PsA. Further study is needed to assess the relationship between disease duration and DMARD efficacy in reducing pain in these conditions.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthralgiaArthritisArthritis, PsoriaticArthritis, RheumatoidEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpondylitis, AnkylosingTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic Agents

Identifiers

PMID23292213
OpenAlexW2076218729

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.