Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30877484›Full record

Trial reportDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2019

Comparing duloxetine and pregabalin for treatment of pain and depression in women with fibromyalgia: an open-label randomized clinical trial.

Ali Bidari, Ehsan Moazen-Zadeh, Banafsheh Ghavidel-Parsa, Shahrzad Rahmani, Sajjad Hosseini, Amir Hassankhani

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Therapeutic approach to fibromyalgia: a consensus statement on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment from the neuropathic pain special interest group of the Italian neurological society.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ali BidariDepartment of Rheumatology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ehsan Moazen-ZadehPsychiatric Research Center, Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Banafsheh Ghavidel-ParsaRheumatology Research Center, Razi Hospital, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. bghavidelparsa@gmail.com.
Shahrzad RahmaniDepartment of Rheumatology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sajjad HosseiniDepartment of General Medicine, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Amir HassankhaniDepartment of General Medicine, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Guilan University of Medical Sciences · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRRazi Hospital · IRRoozbeh Hospital · IR

Funding

Iran University of Medical Sciences 2470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuloxetine and pregabalin are among the most widely used medications in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FM).

objectivesTo add to the very few lines of evidence that exist on the comparative safety and efficacy of these two medications.

methodsIn this open-label randomized clinical trial, outpatient women, who were diagnosed with FM based on American College of Rheumatology 2010 criteria, and had an age range of 18-65 years old were assigned to either duloxetine 30-60 mg or pregabalin 75-150 mg per day for 4 weeks. Patients were excluded in cases of having used duloxetine, pregabalin, gabapentin, or antidepressants within 12 weeks prior to the study, having had a history of comorbid medical conditions that could provoke chronic pain, or having had comorbid neuropsychiatric disorders, except for major depressive/anxiety disorders. Primary outcomes were between-group differences in mean score changes from baseline to end point for Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and Beck Depression Inventory-II. Secondary outcomes were the same statistical estimates, but for Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised and 12-Item Short Form Survey. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test were the main methods of analysis. ( www.irct.ir ; IRCT2016030626935N1).

resultsAmong all the scales, only WPI scores improved with a statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms, favoring duloxetine (Mean difference in score change - 2.32, 95% CI, -4.46 to - 0.18; p = 0.034; Cohen's d 0.53 95% CI, 0.04 to 1.02). Drop out rate and cumulative incidence of nausea was significantly higher in the duloxetine arm compared to the pregabalin arm.

conclusionThis study provides further evidence on higher efficacy of duloxetine compared to pregabalin for the treatment of pain in patients with fibromyalgia. Future comprehensive pragmatic clinical trials are warranted.

Indexed as

AdultChronic PainDepressionDrug Administration ScheduleDuloxetine HydrochlorideFemaleFibromyalgiaHumansMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPregabalinTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultDuloxetine HydrochloridePregabalinClinical trialDuloxetineFibromyalgiaPregabalin

Identifiers

PMID30877484
PMCPMC6593027
OpenAlexW2920957060

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.