↓ Skip to main content

Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007963.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muke Zhou, Ning Chen, Li He, Mi Yang, Cairong Zhu, Fengbo Wu

Abstract

Several anticonvulsant drugs are used in the management of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. Oxcarbazepine is reportedly better tolerated than carbamazepine. This is the first update of a review published in 2013. To assess the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different types of neuropathic pain. On 21 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to November 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials in January 2017, and we wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts requesting additional information. All RCTs and randomised cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention with a treatment duration of at least six weeks, regardless of administration route and dose. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Five multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 862 participants were eligible for inclusion in this updated review. Three trials involved participants with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) (n = 634), one included people with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (n = 145), and one, which was newly identified at this update, involved participants with peripheral neuropathic pain of mixed origin (polyneuropathy, peripheral nerve injury or postherpetic neuralgia) (n = 83). Some studies did not report all outcomes of interest. For painful DPN, compared to the baseline, the proportion of participants who reported at least a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment in the oxcarbazepine group versus the placebo group were: at least 50% reduction: 34.8% with oxcarbazepine versus 18.2% with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 3 to 41); and at least 30% reduction: 44.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 28.6% with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to 114; n = 146). Both results were based on data from a single trial, since two trials that found little or no benefit did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Although these trials were well designed, incomplete outcome data and possible unblinding of participants due to obvious adverse effects placed the results at a high risk of bias. There was also serious imprecision and a high risk of publication bias. The radiculopathy trial reported no benefit for the outcome 'at least 50% pain relief' from oxcarbazepine. In mixed neuropathies, 19.3% of people receiving oxcarbazepine versus 4.8% receiving placebo had at least 50% pain relief. These small trials had low event rates and provided, at best, low-quality evidence for any outcome. The proportion of people with 'improved' or 'very much improved' pain was 45.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 30.1% with placebo in DPN (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.88; n = 493; 2 trials; very-low-quality evidence) and 23.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo in radiculopathy (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.20; n = 145).We found no trials in other types of neuropathic pain such as trigeminal neuralgia.Trial reports stated that most adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity. Based on moderate-quality evidence from the three DPN trials, serious adverse effects occurred in 8.3% with oxcarbazepine and 2.5% with placebo (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.20; n = 634; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful (serious adverse effect) outcome (NNTH) was 17 (95% CI 11 to 42). The RR for serious adverse effects in the radiculopathy trial was 3.13 (95% CI 0.65 to 14.98, n = 145). The fifth trial did not provide data.More people withdrew because of adverse effects with oxcarbazepine than with placebo (DPN: 25.6% with oxcarbazepine versus 6.8% with placebo; RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40; radiculopathy: 42.3% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23; mixed neuropathic pain: 13.5% with oxcarbazepine versus 1.2% with placebo; RR 11.51, 95% CI 1.54 to 86.15). This review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and a mixture of neuropathies. Some very-low-quality evidence suggests efficacy but small trials, low event rates, heterogeneity in some measures and a high risk of publication bias means that we have very low confidence in the measures of effect. Adverse effects, serious adverse effects and adverse effects leading to discontinuation are probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo; however, the numbers of participants and event rates are low. More well-designed, multicentre RCTs investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed, and selective publication of studies or data should be avoided.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 24%
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Unspecified 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 33 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 42%
Unspecified 25 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 19 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,902,191
of 13,384,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,582
of 10,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,240
of 388,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,384,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.