Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30383660›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

Prostaglandin E1 plus methylcobalamin combination therapy versus prostaglandin E1 monotherapy for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

De-Qi Jiang, Shi-Hua Zhao, Ming-Xing Li, Li-Lin Jiang, Yong Wang, Yan Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rasagiline combined with levodopa therapy versus levodopa monotherapy for patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Diabetic neuropathy: cutting-edge research and future directions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

De-Qi JiangCollege of Biology and Pharmacy, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources Chemistry and Biotechnology, Yulin Normal University, Yulin.
Shi-Hua ZhaoCollege of Biology and Pharmacy, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources Chemistry and Biotechnology, Yulin Normal University, Yulin.
Ming-Xing LiDepartment of Pharmacy, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.
Li-Lin JiangCollege of Biology and Pharmacy, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources Chemistry and Biotechnology, Yulin Normal University, Yulin.
Yong WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou.
Yan WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Guangdong Province Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Foshan, China.
Yulin Normal University · CNSir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNSouthern Medical University · CNZhujiang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstaglandin E1 (P) or methylcobalamin (M) treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic approach for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in many clinical trial reports. However, the combined effects of 2 drugs still remain dubious.

objectiveThe aim of this report was to evaluate the efficacy of M plus P (M + P) for the treatment of DPN compared with that of P monotherapy, in order to provide a reference resource for rational drug use.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of M + P for DPN published up to September 2017 were searched. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed with the I test. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. The outcomes measured were as follows: the clinical efficacy, median motor nerve conduction velocities (MNCV), median sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), peroneal MNCV, peroneal SNCV, and adverse effects.

resultsSixteen RCTs with 1136 participants were included. Clinical efficacy of M + P combination therapy was significantly better than P monotherapy (fifteen trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.32, P < .00001, I = 27%). Compared with P monotherapy, the pooled effects of M + P combination therapy on nerve conduction velocity were (MD 6.29, 95% CI 4.63-7.94, P < .00001, I = 90%) for median MNCV, (MD 5.68, 95% CI 3.53-7.83, P < .00001, I = 94%) for median SNCV, (MD 5.36, 95% CI 3.86-6.87, P < .00001, I = 92%) for peroneal MNCV, (MD 4.62, 95% CI 3.48-5.75, P < .00001, I = 86%) for peroneal SNCV. There were no serious adverse events associated with drug intervention.

conclusionsM + P combination therapy was superior to P monotherapy for improvement of neuropathic symptoms and NCVs in DPN patients. Moreover, no serious adverse events occur in combination therapy.

Indexed as

AlprostadilDiabetic NeuropathiesDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansMaleNeural ConductionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeVitamin B 12AlprostadilmecobalaminVitamin B 12

Identifiers

PMID30383660
PMCPMC6221723
OpenAlexW2899021524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.