ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2021
Efficacy and Safety of Different Intravenous Glucocorticoid Regimens in the Treatment of Graves' Ophthalmopathy: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacologic Therapies for Active Moderate-to-Severe TED: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2026Review
- Multimodal MRI radiomics-clinical fusion model predicts intravenous glucocorticoid response in thyroid eye disease.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe intravenous glucocorticoid (iv GC) represents the mainstay of therapy for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO), but uncertainty remains concerning the optimal regimen. Although the European Group on Graves' Orbitopathy (EUGOGO) regimen has been commonly employed, evidence for its superiority to other regimens is still lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of the EUGOGO regimen with higher-dose regimens in the management of GO.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the EUGOGO regimen with higher-dose regimens was conducted. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies. The efficacy outcomes were response rate, change in clinical activity score (CAS), rate of proptosis improvement, and retreatment rate. The safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events.
resultsIn the five included eligible trials, 136 participants in the EUGOGO regimen and 177 participants in higher-dose regimens were evaluated. Compared with the EUGOGO regimen, higher-dose regimens had no beneficial effect on the response rate, change of CAS, rate of proptosis improvement, and retreatment rate (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 0.36-4.65; SMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -0.54, 0.45; OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.44-1.44; OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.27-2.77). For the incidence of adverse events, the results also showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.62-2.09).
conclusionThe current evidence showed that the efficacy of the EUGOGO regimen was comparable with higher-dose regimens. Since there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two regimens, appropriate selection of patients and careful monitoring were required in both regimens. More well-designed, large-scale, and longer follow-up period studies were needed to further verify the finding of this analysis.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.