SynthesisPloS one2022
Efficacy and safety of different antidepressants and anticonvulsants in central poststroke pain: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fibromyalgia in cancer patients: a systematic review and clinical implications for integrated care.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Common Adverse Reactions and Management Strategies of First-Line Anti-Tuberculosis Drugs.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
- Case Report: Multidimensional Analgesia via Asymmetric Dual-Target Deep Brain Stimulation of the Periaqueductal Gray and Ventral Posterior Thalamus in Central Post-stroke Pain.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging and diffuse tensor imaging diagnostic values in central post-stroke pain.Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2025Review
- Advancements in Modern Treatment Approaches for Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antidepressants and anticonvulsants in the treatment of central poststroke pain (CPSP) by network meta-analysis and provide an evidence-based foundation for clinical practice.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, APA PsycINFO, Wanfang, VIP and other databases were searched by computer to find clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on drug treatment of CPSP. The retrieval time limit was from the establishment of each database to July 2022. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane. Stata 14.0 was used for network meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 13 RCTs, 1040 patients and 9 drugs were finally included. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the effectiveness ranking as rated by the visual analog scale (VAS) was gabapentin > pregabalin > fluoxetine > lamotrigine > duloxetine > serqulin > amitriptyline > carbamazepine > vitamin B. Ranking according to the numerical rating scale (NRS) was pregabalin > gabapentin > carbamazepine. Ranking derived from the Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) was pregabalin > duloxetine > gabapentin > amitriptyline.
conclusionAll nine drugs can relieve the pain of CPSP patients to different degrees; among them pregabalin and gabapentin have the most significant effect, and gabapentin and pregabalin also have the most adverse reactions. In the future, more multicenter, large sample, double-blind clinical randomized controlled trials need to be carried out to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Indexed as
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.