Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26448006›Full record

ArticleMedicine2015

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Relatively Selective COX-2 Inhibitors Versus Coxibs for the Prevention of NSAID-Induced Gastrointestinal Injury.

Man Yang, Hong-Tao Wang, Miao Zhao, Wen-Bo Meng, Jin-Qing Ou, Jun-Hui He, Bing Zou, Ping-Guang Lei

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Evaluation and Management of Secondary Hypertension.The Medical clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Esophageal ulcer induced by ibuprofen tablets.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2015
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Man YangFrom the Department of Gastroenterology, Songgang People's Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (MY, J-QO, MZ, J-HH, P-GL); Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (MY, BZ); Department of Burns and Cutaneous Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China (H-TW); and Special Minimally Invasive Surgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Institute of Gansu, Cancer Center of Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China (W-BM).
Hong-Tao Wang
Miao Zhao
Wen-Bo Meng
Jin-Qing Ou
Jun-Hui He
Bing Zou
Ping-Guang Lei
WestCon Medical (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently 2 difference classes of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, coxibs and relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors, are available for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy; their gastroprotective effect is hardly directly compared. The aim of this study was to compare the gastroprotective effect of relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors with coxibs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to March 2015) were searched for potential eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, parecoxib, and lumiracoxib), relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors (nabumetone, meloxicam, and etodolac), and nonselective NSAIDs with a study duration ≥ 4 weeks. Comparative effectiveness and safety data were pooled by Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were ulcer complications and symptomatic ulcer. Summary effect-size was calculated as risk ratio (RR), together with the 95% confidence interval (CI). This study included 36 trials with a total of 112,351 participants. Network meta-analyses indicated no significant difference between relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs regarding ulcer complications (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27), symptomatic ulcer (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.09-3.92), and endoscopic ulcer (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.37-2.96). Network meta-analyses adjusting potential influential factors (age, sex, previous ulcer disease, and follow-up time), and sensitivity analyses did not reveal any major change to the main results. Network meta-analyses suggested that relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs were associated with comparable incidences of total adverse events (AEs) (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93-1.31), gastrointestinal AEs (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.25), total withdrawals (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.74-1.33), and gastrointestinal AE-related withdrawals (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57-1.74). Relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors appear to be associated with similar gastroprotective effect and tolerability as coxibs. Owing to the indirectness of the comparisons, future research is required to confirm the study conclusion.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCyclooxygenase 2 InhibitorsDrug ToleranceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStomachStomach UlcerAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID26448006
PMCPMC4616749
OpenAlexW2315524864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.