卡马西平和加巴喷丁治疗三叉神经痛的安全性和有效性评价:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Yan Yang, Haitao Shang, Tao Han
{"title":"卡马西平和加巴喷丁治疗三叉神经痛的安全性和有效性评价:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yan Yang, Haitao Shang, Tao Han","doi":"10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10491,"journal":{"name":"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yan Yang, Haitao Shang, Tao Han\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评价卡马西平与加巴喷丁治疗三叉神经痛的安全性和有效性。因此,对随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:在PubMed中检索相关研究,按照纳入和排除标准进行筛选。两位审稿人独立地选择研究,评估调查的质量,并检索数据。收集数据时使用RevMan软件进行分析,并录入数据提取表。除异质性外,对连续数据和二分类数据的相对风险的总体估计测量均以95%置信区间的平均差异计算。为了研究异常值对结果的影响,进行了敏感性分析。采用漏斗图对发表偏倚进行定性评价。来自19个随机对照试验的1650名参与者被评估。结果:meta分析显示,加巴喷丁治疗组与卡马西平治疗组的总有效率相似(OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.46, 2.57, P = 0.32)。此外,我们的荟萃分析显示,接受加巴喷丁治疗组的不良反应风险明显低于接受卡马西平治疗组(OR= 0.29, 95% CI 0.22, 0.387, p)。结论:总之,目前比较卡马西平和加巴喷丁的试验存在方法学质量不足的问题。根据目前可获得的证据,不可能得出加巴喷丁在副作用方面比卡马西平更有效的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aim: This 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.

Methods: The 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.

Results: The 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).

Conclusion: In 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
327
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening (CCHTS) publishes full length original research articles and reviews/mini-reviews dealing with various topics related to chemical biology (High Throughput Screening, Combinatorial Chemistry, Chemoinformatics, Laboratory Automation and Compound management) in advancing drug discovery research. Original research articles and reviews in the following areas are of special interest to the readers of this journal: Target identification and validation Assay design, development, miniaturization and comparison High throughput/high content/in silico screening and associated technologies Label-free detection technologies and applications Stem cell technologies Biomarkers ADMET/PK/PD methodologies and screening Probe discovery and development, hit to lead optimization Combinatorial chemistry (e.g. small molecules, peptide, nucleic acid or phage display libraries) Chemical library design and chemical diversity Chemo/bio-informatics, data mining Compound management Pharmacognosy Natural Products Research (Chemistry, Biology and Pharmacology of Natural Products) Natural Product Analytical Studies Bipharmaceutical studies of Natural products Drug repurposing Data management and statistical analysis Laboratory automation, robotics, microfluidics, signal detection technologies Current & Future Institutional Research Profile Technology transfer, legal and licensing issues Patents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信