SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Comparing the efficacy of topical interventions for pain management in oral lichen planus: a time-stratified bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of short-term pain relief provided by newly developed drugs for the treatment of oral lichen planus is currently limited. The primary aim of this study was to establish a clinically relevant hierarchy among different treatments in terms of their effectiveness for short-term pain control.
methodsEMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, WanFang database, and Cochrane databases were searched up to January 2025. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using Stata/SE 15.1 software. The primary outcome was the reduction in pain severity, and the secondary outcome was the improvement in clinical sign scores. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and confidence in network meta-analysis(CINeMA) was employed to evaluate the confidence in evidence. NMA was performed in Stata within a frequentist framework, and heterogeneity and inconsistency were assessed. Heterogeneity, inconsistency, and sensitivity were analyzed, with comprehensive efficacy rankings derived from surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.
resultsSixty-four randomized trials (2,839 participants) evaluating 24 interventions were included. Corticosteroids and immunosuppressants demonstrated significant efficacy in pain control and sign score improvement. Topical laser therapy and plant-based agents (e.g. Chamomile) emerged as effective alternatives, particularly for early-to-mid stage symptom management.
conclusionsBased on the evidence, highly effective topical corticosteroids are preferred, and immunosuppressants can be used when corticosteroids are ineffective or cause adverse effects, both in terms of pain control and sign score reduction. Phototherapy and botanicals offer favorable safety profiles for sustained use. Future research should focus on exploring more effective administration methods and combination therapies with fewer side effects. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This NMA provides a time-dependent therapeutic hierarchy for oral lichen planus management, addressing gaps in comparative effectiveness evidence. While limitations exist in long-term outcome data, findings support personalized treatment sequences based on symptom severity and treatment phase.
trial registrationThe systematic review protocol has been registered in advance with the PROSPERO database (CRD42020197486).
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.