ArticleArthritis research & therapy2015
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and their benefits and harms: the challenge of interpreting meta-analyses and observational data sets when balanced data are not analyzed and reported.
Article 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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Patients Experiencing Pain and Inflammation, the Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Is More Likely a Marker of the Observed Cardiovascular Risk Rather than Its Cause: A Viewpoint.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity, hydroxychloroquine and NSAID on the risk of subsequent organ system damage and death: analysis in a single US medical centre.Lupus science & medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A multitude of reports have delineated the risks of using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but have not been totally congruent. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials sometimes concur regarding gastrointestinal risk and cardiovascular risk but rarely report a balance of these risks for any one drug. Benefits measured in these studies are usually not reported. Observational data sets, supposedly reflective of 'real world' patients, do not always agree with the randomized controlled trial reports. Clinicians need assessments measuring the balance of harms and benefits so that better decisions based on their patients' unique risk factors can be reached.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.