Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26329307›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain.

Anna Wrzosek, Jaroslaw Woron, Jan Dobrogowski, Joanna Jakowicka-Wordliczek, Jerzy Wordliczek

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Current Strategies for the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Comprehensive Review of Topical Analgesics for Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. The Use of the Selective Imidazoline INeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Spinal αBritish journal of pharmacology · 2019
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Topical treatments for diabetic neuropathic pain.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Topical Treatments for Localized Neuropathic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Wrzosek1st Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital, Kopernika 36, Krakow, Poland, 31-501.
Jaroslaw Woron
Jan Dobrogowski
Joanna Jakowicka-Wordliczek
Jerzy Wordliczek
Jagiellonian University · PLUniversity School of Physical Education in Kraków · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs is currently gaining interest, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated recently in clinical trials.

objectivesThe objectives of this review were to assess the analgesic efficacy of TC for chronic neuropathic pain in adults and to assess the frequency of adverse events associated with clinical use of TC for chronic neuropathic pain. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Online (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries, and we contacted experts in the field. We performed the most recent search on 17 September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data from the studies and assessed bias. We planned three tiers of evidence analysis. The first tier was designed to analyse data meeting current best standards, by which studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent) without use of the last observation carried forward or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted eight weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design and included at least 200 participants (preferably at least 400) in the comparison. The second tier was designed to use data from at least 200 participants but in cases in which one of the above conditions was not met. The third tier of evidence was assumed in other situations. MAIN

resultsWe included two studies in the review, with a total of 344 participants. Studies lasted 8 weeks and 12 weeks and compared TC versus placebo. 0.1%. TC was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily.Studies included in this review were subject to potential bias and were classified as of moderate or low quality. One drug manufacturer supported both studies.We found no top-tier evidence for TC in neuropathic pain. Second-tier evidence indicated slight improvement after the drug was used in study participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). A greater number of participants in the TC group had at least 30% reduction in pain compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8.33, 95% CI 4.3 to 50). Third-tier evidence indicated that TC was no better than placebo for achieving at least 50% reduction in pain intensity and on the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. The two included studies could be subject to significant bias. We found no studies that reported other neuropathic pain conditions.The rate of adverse events did not differ between groups, with the exception of a higher incidence of mild skin reactions in the placebo group, which should have no clinical significance. AUTHORS'

conclusionsLimited evidence from a small number of studies of moderate to low quality suggests that TC may provide some benefit in peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The drug may be useful in situations for which no better treatment options are available because of lack of efficacy, contraindications or adverse events. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine how patients who have a chance to respond to the drug should be selected for treatment.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAdrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsAnalgesicsChronic PainClonidineDiabetic NeuropathiesHumansNeuralgiaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsAnalgesicsClonidine

Identifiers

PMID26329307
PMCPMC6489438
OpenAlexW2096980893

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.