IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0280593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-epidemiological study on the reported treatment effect of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time

Author

Listed:
  • Emma T L Cheng
  • Mohammad Cheik-Hussein
  • Noelle Lin
  • Adriane M Lewin
  • James H McAuley
  • Ian A Harris

Abstract

Background: Pregabalin is a drug used to treat neuropathic pain, and its use has increased substantially since 2007. Early trials found a strong treatment effect on pain for post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. However more recent studies have failed to replicate these results. Methods: This meta-epidemiological study aimed to assess change in the reported effectiveness of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time, and if a change is present, determine any associated factors. Data sources: We performed electronic searches for published trials in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases; and unpublished trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with no restrictions. Study selection: We included randomized, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for treatment of neuropathic pain in adults. Data extraction and synthesis: Two authors independently extracted study data: sample size and mean baseline, end-point and change in pain scores with measures of variance, trial end year, publication year, clinical indication, funding source, country of study, treatment duration, treatment dose, mean age and percentage male. Primary outcome measure: We defined treatment effect as the mean difference in pain scores between pregabalin and placebo groups at trial end-point and assessed for change over time using a random-effects meta-regression, adjusted for sample size, indication, treatment duration (weeks) and treatment dose. Results: We included 38 randomized published trials (9038 participants) and found that between 2003 and 2020, the reported treatment effect of pregabalin decreased by 0.4 points (95% CI: 0.3 to 0.6; p

Suggested Citation

  • Emma T L Cheng & Mohammad Cheik-Hussein & Noelle Lin & Adriane M Lewin & James H McAuley & Ian A Harris, 2023. "A meta-epidemiological study on the reported treatment effect of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0280593
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280593
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280593&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0280593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Schooler, 2011. "Unpublished results hide the decline effect," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7335), pages 437-437, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Katharina Alter & Juliette Jacquemont & Joachim Claudet & María E. Lattuca & María E. Barrantes & Stefano Marras & Patricio H. Manríquez & Claudio P. González & Daniel A. Fernández & Myron A. Peck & C, 2024. "Hidden impacts of ocean warming and acidification on biological responses of marine animals revealed through meta-analysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Vieira, Valter Afonso & Rafael, Diego Nogueira & Agnihotri, Raj, 2022. "Augmented reality generalizations: A meta-analytical review on consumer-related outcomes and the mediating role of hedonic and utilitarian values," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 170-184.
    4. Fanelli, Daniele, 2020. "Metascientific reproducibility patterns revealed by informatic measure of knowledge," MetaArXiv 5vnhj, Center for Open Science.
    5. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in experimental economics: A historical and quantitative approach focused on public good game experiments," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01651080, HAL.
    6. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:870-881 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Johannes Auer & Dominik Papies, 2020. "Cross-price elasticities and their determinants: a meta-analysis and new empirical generalizations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 584-605, May.
    9. Yingjie Wang & Huachun Wang & Tian Fu, 2024. "Can social networks facilitate smallholders’ decisions to adopt climate-smart agriculture technologies? A three-level meta-analysis," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Lynch, John G. & Bradlow, Eric T. & Huber, Joel C. & Lehmann, Donald R., 2015. "Reflections on the replication corner: In praise of conceptual replications," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 333-342.
    11. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.
    13. Isabelle Bartram & Jonathan M Jeschke, 2019. "Do cancer stem cells exist? A pilot study combining a systematic review with the hierarchy-of-hypotheses approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones, 2013. "Replication of quantitative work in development studies: Experiences and suggestions," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 13(4), pages 307-322, October.
    15. Frank Renkewitz & Heather M. Fuchs & Susann Fiedler, 2011. "Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 870-881, December.
    16. Daniele Fanelli, 2013. "Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 701-709, February.
    17. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in Experimental Economics: A Historical and Quantitative Approach Focused on Public Good Game Experiments," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-21, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    18. Christopher Schlaegel & Michael Koenig, 2014. "Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta–Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 291-332, March.
    19. Victor A Sanchez-Azanza & Raúl López-Penadés & Lucía Buil-Legaz & Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla & Daniel Adrover-Roig, 2017. "Is bilingualism losing its advantage? A bibliometric approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, April.
    20. Laura Smarandescu & Terence Shimp, 2015. "Drink coca-cola, eat popcorn, and choose powerade: testing the limits of subliminal persuasion," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 715-726, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0280593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.