ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2024. 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.
- Understanding network meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Evolution of treatment options for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, the optimal method for JIA has not yet been developed.
aimTo perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the optimal instructions.
methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CNKI, and Wanfang without restriction for publication date or language at August, 2023. Any RCTs that comparing the effectiveness of NSAIDs with each other or placebo for JIA were included in this network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis was used to rank the treatments.
resultsWe included 8 RCTs (1127 patients) comparing 8 different instructions including meloxicam (0.125 qd and 0.250 qd), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid and 6 mg/kg bid), piroxicam, Naproxen (5.0 mg/kg/d, 7.5 mg/kg/d and 12.5 mg/kg/d), inuprofen (30-40 mg/kg/d), Aspirin (60-80 mg/kg/d, 75 mg/kg/d, and 55 mg/kg/d), Tolmetin (15 mg/kg/d), Rofecoxib, and placebo. There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding ACR Pedi 30 response. The SUCRA shows that celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) ranked first (SUCRA, 88.9%), rofecoxib ranked second (SUCRA, 68.1%), Celecoxib (3 mg/kg bid) ranked third (SUCRA, 51.0%). There were no significant differences between any two NSAIDs regarding adverse events. The SUCRA shows that placebo ranked first (SUCRA, 88.2%), piroxicam ranked second (SUCRA, 60.5%), rofecoxib (0.6 mg/kg qd) ranked third (SUCRA, 56.1%), meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg qd) ranked fourth (SUCRA, 56.1%), and rofecoxib (0.3 mg/kg qd) ranked fifth (SUCRA, 56.1%).
conclusionIn summary, celecoxib (6 mg/kg bid) was found to be the most effective NSAID for treating JIA. Rofecoxib, piroxicam, and meloxicam may be safer options, but further research is needed to confirm these findings in larger trials with higher quality studies.
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.