Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879879›Full record

SynthesisArthritis research & therapy2015

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis.

Anneloes van Walsem, Shaloo Pandhi, Richard M Nixon, Patricia Guyot, Andreas Karabis, R Andrew Moore

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Arthritis research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 218 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anneloes van WalsemMapi, De Molen 84, 3995, AX, Houten, The Netherlands. avanwalsem@mapigroup.com.
Shaloo PandhiNovartis Pharma AG, Lichtstrasse 35, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. shaloo.pandhi@novartis.com.
Richard M NixonNovartis Pharma AG, Lichtstrasse 35, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. richard.nixon@novartis.com.
Patricia GuyotMapi, De Molen 84, 3995, AX, Houten, The Netherlands. pguyot@mapigroup.com.
Andreas KarabisMapi, De Molen 84, 3995, AX, Houten, The Netherlands. akarabis@mapigroup.com.
R Andrew MooreUniversity of Oxford, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK. andrew.moore@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

methodsA systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.

resultsEfficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.

conclusionsThe benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalArthritis, RheumatoidCyclooxygenase 2 InhibitorsDiclofenacHumansOsteoarthritisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCyclooxygenase 2 InhibitorsDiclofenac

Identifiers

PMID25879879
PMCPMC4411793
OpenAlexW2127741681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.