Review Article
Comparative Efficacy of Medical Treatments for Thyroid Eye Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis
Table 1
Study characteristics of included RCTs.
| Authors | Year | Country | Design | Intervention | Sample size | Stage | Mean age | Sex (M/F) | Follow-up (month) |
| Macchia et al. [15] | 2001 | Italy | OL-P | IVGC vs. OGC | 25 vs. 26 | OI 4.43 vs. 2.65 | 42.6 vs. 44.57 | 11/40 | 12 | Kahaly et al. [14] | 2005 | Germany | SB-P | IVGC vs. OGC | 35 vs. 35 | CAS (7) 5 vs. 5 | 52 vs. 48 | 21/49 | 6 | Aktaran et al. [12] | 2007 | Turkey | SB-P | IVGC vs. OGC | 25 vs. 27 | CAS (10) 5.2 vs. 5.0 | 44.3 vs. 41.3 | 24/28 | 3 | Roy et al. [10] | 2015 | Indian | OL-P | IVGC vs. OGC | 31 vs. 31 | CAS (10) 4.29 vs. 3.94 | 37.61 vs. 36.93 | 24/38 | 12 | van Geest et al. [11] | 2008 | Netherlands | DB-P | IVGC vs. placebo | 6 vs. 9 | CAS (10) 6 vs. 4.9 | 50.7 vs. 44.7 | 3/12 | 12–48 | Salvi et al. [27] | 2015 | Italy | DB-P | Rtx vs. IVGC | 15 vs. 16 | CAS (7) 4.4 vs. 4.7 | 51.9 vs. 50.4 | 5/26 | 6–12 | Stan et al. [26] | 2015 | America | DB-P | Rtx vs. placebo | 12 vs. 13 | CAS (7) 4.9 vs. 5.3 | 57.6 vs. 61.8 | 8/17 | 6–12 | Ng et al. [13] | 2005 | Hongkong | SB-P | IVGC vs. IVGC + OR | 8 vs. 8 | TES 16.5 vs. 18 | 48.3 vs. 64.1 | 10/6 | 12 | Marcocci et al. [24] | 2001 | Italy | SB-P | IVGC + OR vs. OGC + OR | 41 vs. 41 | CAS (7) 4.5 vs. 4.2 | 50 vs. 48 | 14/68 | 12 | Alkawas et al. [16] | 2010 | Egypt | OL-P | OGC vs. OIGC | 15 vs. 14 | CAS (8) 4.75 vs. 5 | N/A | 8/16 | 6 | Marcocci et al. [25] | 1991 | Italy | OL-P | OGC + OR vs. OR | 13 vs. 13 | OI 5.85 vs. 5.46 | 47.3 vs. 46 | 8/18 | 6–18 | Prummel et al. [19] | 1993 | Netherlands | DB-P | OGC vs. OR | 28 vs. 28 | TES 8.7 vs. 9.4 | 47 vs. 46.6 | 9/47 | 6 | Bartalena et al. [21] | 1983 | Italy | SB-P | OGC + OR vs. OGC | 12 vs. 12 | OI 6.4 vs. 6.2 | 42 vs. 46 | 11/13 | 12–28 | Mourits et al. [23] | 2000 | Netherlands | DB-P | OR vs. placebo | 30 vs. 30 | CAS (10) 3.3 vs. 3.4 | 48.7 vs. 49 | 9/51 | 6 | Prummel et al. [22] | 2004 | Netherlands | DB-P | OR vs. placebo | 44 vs. 44 | CAS (10) 3.0 vs. 3.3 | 45.2 vs. 45.1 | 18/70 | 12 | Stan et al. [28] | 2006 | America | DB-P | SSAnalogs vs. placebo | 14 vs. 11 | CAS (7) 6 vs. 5 | 53 vs. 61 | 7/18 | 4 | Chang and Liao [29] | 2006 | Taiwan | DB-P | SSAnalogs vs. placebo | 30 vs. 30 | CAS (7) 3.6 vs. 3.7 | 43.0 vs. 43.1 | 17/43 | 3 | Dickinson et al. [31] | 2004 | UK | DB-P | SSAnalogs vs. placebo | 23 vs. 27 | CAS (10) 5.39 vs. 5.85 | 50 vs. 50 | 11/39 | 4 | Wémeau et al. [30] | 2005 | France | DB-P | SSAnalogs vs. placebo | 25 vs. 25 | CAS (10) 4.2 vs. 4.5 | 47.5 vs. 47.1 | 10/40 | 6 | Kung et al. [17] | 1996 | Hongkong | OL-P | SSAnalogs vs. OGC | 8 vs. 10 | CAS (7) 5 vs. 3 | 38.2 vs. 45.2 | 9/9 | 3 | Prummel et al. [20] | 1989 | Netherlands | SB-P | OGC vs. cyclosporin | 18 vs. 18 | TES 12.9 vs. 11.5 | 49 vs. 52 | 10/26 | 3 | Kahaly et al. [18] | 1996 | Germany | OL-P | OGC vs. IVIG | 19 vs. 21 | N/A | 47 vs. 48 | 9/31 | 5 | Smith et al. [4] | 2017 | America | DB-P | Teprotumumab vs. placebo | 42 vs. 45 | CAS (7) 5.1 vs. 5.2 | 51.6 vs. 54.2 | 83/64 | 6 |
|
|