Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28348186›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Biological rationale and potential clinical use of gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, insomnia and anxiety: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kerensa T Houghton, Alexandra Forrest, Amine Awad, Lauren Z Atkinson, Sarah Stockton, Paul J Harrison, John R Geddes, Andrea Cipriani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Chronic Nodular Prurigo: An Update on the Pathogenesis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The vicious cycle of itch and anxiety.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2018
    Review
  20. The Emerging Neurobiology of Bipolar Disorder.Trends in neurosciences · 2018
    Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kerensa T HoughtonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Alexandra ForrestDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Amine AwadDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Lauren Z AtkinsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Sarah StocktonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Paul J HarrisonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
John R GeddesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGabapentin has been extensively prescribed off-label for psychiatric indications, with little established evidence of efficacy. Gabapentin and pregabalin, a very similar drug with the same mechanism of action, bind to a subunit of voltage-dependent calcium channels which are implicated in the aetiopathogenesis of bipolar disorder, anxiety and insomnia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to collect and critically appraise all the available evidence about the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin and pregabalin in the treatment of bipolar disorder, insomnia and anxiety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported as double-blind and comparing gabapentin or pregabalin with placebo or any other active pharmacological treatment (any preparation, dose, frequency, route of delivery or setting) in patients with bipolar disorder, anxiety or insomnia. For consideration of adverse effects (tolerability), single-blind or open-label RCTs and non-randomised evidence will also be summarised. The main outcomes will be efficacy (measured as dichotomous and continuous outcome) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment). Published and unpublished studies will be sought through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; all reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least 2 independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome. Heterogeneity between studies will be investigated by the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016041802). The results of the systematic review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Indexed as

AminesAnti-Anxiety AgentsAnxiety DisordersBipolar DisorderCyclohexanecarboxylic AcidsDouble-Blind MethodGabapentingamma-Aminobutyric AcidHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPregabalinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersSystematic Reviews as TopicTreatment OutcomeAminesAnti-Anxiety AgentsCyclohexanecarboxylic AcidsGabapentingamma-Aminobutyric AcidPregabalinBipolar disorderInsomniaMENTAL HEALTHMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28348186
PMCPMC5372050
OpenAlexW2599662497

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.