SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Efficacy and safety of gabapentinoid combination therapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether combining gabapentinoids with other agents yields superior efficacy and safety outcomes compared to gabapentinoid monotherapy in patients with neuropathic pain remains unknown. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of gabapentinoid combination therapy versus monotherapy in patients with neuropathic pain in head-to-head comparative studies. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to November 4, 2025. Data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, respectively. Pain scores (standardized to a 0-10 scale) were the primary outcomes, sleep interference scores, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Study screening and selection were performed independently by 2 reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by a third adjudicator. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the Results: Twenty-one clinical trials comprising 2204 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Gabapentinoid combination therapy was superior to monotherapy in reducing pain (MD = - 1.27, 95% CI = - 1.55 to - 0.99; n =18) and sleep interference scores (MD = - 0.92, 95% CI = - 1.40 to - 0.45; n =5) and increasing the PGIC response rate (RR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.39; n =4). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that gabapentinoids, both gabapentin and pregabalin, achieved statistically significant greater pain reduction when combined with other gabapentinoids or antidepressants, dietary supplements, local anesthetic, non-pharmacological treatment, and opioids, whereas only a non-significant decreasing trend with immunomodulators. Notably, patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) may benefit more from combination therapy. Although combination therapy was associated with higher overall discontinuation rates and certain adverse events, these safety concerns were largely driven by opioid-gabapentinoid combinations; most other combinations had a safety profile comparable to monotherapy. Conclusion: Gabapentinoid combination therapy was more effective than monotherapy for neuropathic pain, but the benefit-risk profile of specific combinations warrants careful consideration in clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251275655.
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.