SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of imrecoxib versus celecoxib: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy, anti-inflammatory effects, and safety profiles of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors imrecoxib (IMR) and celecoxib (CEL), providing evidence-based guidance for clinical drug selection. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of English and Chinese databases through August 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMR and CEL. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB 2.0) tool, and quantitative analyses were performed using R software. Primary outcomes included clinical response rate, pain intensity assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS), and the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes focused on serum inflammatory markers (CRP and ESR) and disease activity (BASDAI) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Results: Pooled analyses found no significant differences between IMR and CEL in clinical response or pain reduction, indicating comparable analgesic efficacy. The overall safety profiles of the two drugs were also similar. Notably, in the osteoarthritis (OA) subgroup, IMR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with CEL. An exploratory subgroup analysis in axSpA patients suggested that IMR may offer potential advantages over CEL in improving inflammatory markers and disease activity. However, this finding is based on a few small trials and should be interpreted with caution due to the low certainty of evidence. Conclusion: IMR demonstrated comparable efficacy and overall safety to CEL, supporting its role as a viable alternative selective COX-2 inhibitor in clinical practice. IMR may have potentially favorable anti-inflammatory effects in axSpA. The observed anti-inflammatory advantage of IMR in axSpA remains to be confirmed. Given the limitations of small sample sizes, short follow-up durations, and incomplete safety reporting, further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted to validate these findings. Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD420251243032.
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.