ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Carbamazepine and Baclofen in the Management of Trigeminal Neuralgia.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Pharmacological Strategies for Trigeminal Neuralgia.CNS drugs · 2026Review
- 13. Trigeminal Neuralgia.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Review
- A Case Report of Intraoral Injection of Botulinum Toxin A for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Rare but Safe Intervention.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of carbamazepine and baclofen in the medical management of trigeminal neuralgia. Materials and Methods: 100 trigeminal neuralgia patients were randomly divided into two groups with 50 samples in each. Group A had patients treated with carbamazepine while Group B comprised of patients treated using baclofen. Follow-up was performed on the initial, 15 days, 1 month, and 3 months duration. The data was statistically evaluated. Results: Carbamazepine showed a "good response" in 54.39% of patients at initial follow-up, and adverse side effects increased in 20-29.49% of patients from the initial to 3-month duration. On the other hand, baclofen demonstrated a "good response" in 54.45% of patients at initial follow-up. At 800 mg, a "good response" was noted in 87.9% of patients, whereas 16.9% of patients had an "average response" and a "good response" after 1 month. At 3 months, 99.87% of patients showed a "good response." Both groups showed similar success rates after 3 months. Conclusion: Adverse effects incidence and success were similar in both groups.
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.