Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30326006›Full record

Trial reportJAMA neurology2019

Effect of Gabapentin vs Pregabalin on Pain Intensity in Adults With Chronic Sciatica: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Kelvin Robertson, Laurence A G Marshman, David Plummer, Elena Downs

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.9field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelvin RobertsonDepartment of Pharmacy, Medical Services Group, The Townsville Hospital, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Laurence A G MarshmanCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
David PlummerPublic Health & Topical Medicine, James Cook University, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Elena DownsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Institute of Surgery, The Townsville Hospital, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
James Cook University · AUTownsville Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Optimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical regulation authorities typically subsidize one drug over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favored drug is either ineffective or ill-tolerated. Objective: To assess GBP vs PGB head to head for the treatment of CS. Design, Setting, and Participants: A preplanned interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial of PGB vs GBP for management of CS at half the estimated final sample size was performed in a single-center, tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 20 patients underwent randomization from March 2016 to March 2018, and 2 were excluded with 1 lost to follow-up and the other requiring urgent surgery unrelated to the study. Patients attending a specialist neurosurgery clinic with unilateral CS were considered for trial recruitment. Chronic sciatica was defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months radiating into 1 leg only to, at, or below the knee level. Imaging (magnetic resonance imaging with or without computed tomography) corroborating a root-level lesion concordant with symptoms and/or signs was determined by the trial clinician. Inclusion criteria included patients who had not used GBP and PGB and were 18 years or older. Analyses were intention to treat and began February 2018. Interventions: Randomly assigned participants received GBP (400 mg to 800 mg 3 times a day) then PGB (150 mg to 300 mg twice daily) or vice versa, each taken for 8 weeks. Crossover followed a 1-week washout. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (10-point visual analog scale) at baseline and 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability (using the Oswestry Disability Index) and severity/frequency of adverse events. Results: The total trial population (N = 18) consisted mostly of men (11 [61%]) with a mean (SD) age of 57 (16.5) years. A third of the cohort were smokers (5 [28%]), and more than half consumed alcohol (12 [67%]). Gabapentin was superior to PGB, with fewer and less severe adverse events. Both GBP (mean [SD], 7.54 [1.39] to 5.82 [1.72]; P < .001) and PGB (mean [SD], 7.33 [1.30] to 6.38 [1.88]; P = .002) displayed significant visual analog pain intensity scale reduction and Oswestry Disability Index reduction (mean [SD], 59.22 [16.88] to 48.54 [15.52]; P < .001 for both). Head to head, GBP showed superior visual analog pain intensity scale reduction (mean [SD], GBP: 1.72 [1.17] vs PGB: 0.94 [1.09]; P = .035) irrespective of sequence order; however, Oswestry Disability Index reduction was unchanged. Adverse events for PGB were more frequent (PGB, 31 [81%] vs GBP, 7 [19%]; P = .002) especially when PGB was taken first. Conclusions and Relevance: Pregabalin and GBP were both significantly efficacious. However, GBP was superior with fewer and less severe adverse events. Gabapentin should be commenced before PGB to permit optimal crossover of medicines. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnalgesicsChronic PainCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGabapentinHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregabalinSciaticaAnalgesicsGabapentinPregabalin

Identifiers

PMID30326006
PMCPMC6439871
OpenAlexW2896026881

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.