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