Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41152663›Full record

ReviewPain and therapy2025

Efficacy and Safety of Ca

Hui Guo, Yi Wang, Hongjun Lv, Bingyin Shi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hui GuoThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Yi WangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Hongjun LvThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Bingyin ShiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. shibingy@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7545-7043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), a chronic complication of diabetes mellitus that impacts quality of life, is treated with Ca

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science on July 1, 2024 from inception, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of MGB, PGB, and GBP at various doses for DPNP. Non-RCTs, observational studies, reviews, and case reports were excluded. Eligible studies with data on pain relief, sleep interference, and adverse events were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment, and a Bayesian hierarchical fixed-effects model was applied using Stata and R software. Primary outcomes were the comparative efficacy of MGB, PGB, and GBP, assessed by changes in average daily pain score (ADPS) and pain response rates (≥ 30% and ≥ 50% pain reduction). Secondary outcomes included comparative effects on were patient global impression of change (PGIC), sleep interference score (SIS), adverse event (AE) rates, and withdrawals due to AEs (WDAE). For continuous outcomes, results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and for dichotomous outcomes, as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CrIs within a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework.

resultsIn total, 34 RCTs involving 8630 patients and 13 dosing regimens met the inclusion criteria. The sample size ranged from 40 to 834 and the included RCTs were conducted across multiple countries. MGB 30 mg significantly reduced ADPS compared to PGB 300 mg (Mean Difference (MD) - 0.29; 95% credible interval (CrI) - 0.53 to - 0.05) and MGB 15 mg (MD - 0.32; 95% CrI - 0.64 to - 0.01) and achieved higher pain response rates (≥ 30% and ≥ 50%) than GBP 1800 mg (odds ratio (OR) 2.33; 95% CrI 1.01-5.48 and OR 2.87; 95% CrI 1.14-7.81, respectively). MGB 30 mg and GBP 3600 mg were superior to PGB 300 mg and MGB 15 mg in PGIC scores. MGB 30 mg also demonstrated better SIS improvements over GBP 1800 mg and PGB 300 mg. Fewer AEs occurred with MGB 15 mg, PGB 300 mg, and placebo compared to PGB 600 mg, with MGB 15 mg having the lowest WDAE rates. No significant inconsistency or publication bias was observed.

conclusionsMirogabalin, especially at 30 mg showed superior or comparable pain relief, improved sleep interference, and favorable tolerability for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain treatment. Ca

trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42024584773.

Indexed as

Ca2+ channel α2δ ligandsDiabetic peripheral neuropathic painNetwork meta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41152663
PMCPMC12634999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.