SynthesisCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening2026
Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of carbamazepine in treating trigeminal neuralgia in contrast to gabapentin. Hence, a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials had been carried out.
methodsThe relevant studies were searched in PubMed and filtered according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independently, two reviewers chose the studies, evaluated the quality of the investigations, and retrieved the data. RevMan was used for analysis when the data were collected and entered into the data extraction sheet. In addition to heterogeneity, the overall estimate measures were computed as mean differences with a 95% confidence interval for continuous data and relative risk for dichotomous data. To investigate the impact of outliers on the result, a sensitivity analysis was performed. A funnel plot was used to qualitatively evaluate the publishing bias. A total of 1,650 participants from 19 randomised controlled trials were evaluated.
resultsThe meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy had a similar overall effective rate to the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.46, 2.57, P = 0.32). Additionally, our meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy witnessed a significantly lower risk of adverse reactions than the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR= 0.29, 95% CI 0.22, 0.387, P<0.00001).
conclusionIn summary, the current trials comparing carbamazepine and gabapentin have had inadequate methodological quality. It is not possible to conclude that gabapentin is more effective than carbamazepine in terms of adverse effects based on the evidence that is currently available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39995139What 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.