Dataset Information

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain.

Data sources

Electronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates.

Study selection

Randomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks for chronic conditions.

Data extraction

Relative benefit and number needed to treat, analysis of adverse events, and withdrawals.

Data synthesis

Three double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 182 patients with acute conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 5.6; number needed to treat 2.1, 1.7 to 2.8). Six double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 429 patients with chronic conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 1.5, 1.3 to 1.9; number needed to treat 5.3, 3.6 to 10.2), but larger, more valid studies were without significant effect. Local adverse events and withdrawals were generally rare in trials that reported them.

Conclusions

Based on limited information, topically applied rubefacients containing salicylates may be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain. Trials of musculoskeletal and arthritic pain suggested moderate to poor efficacy. Adverse events were rare in studies of acute pain and poorly reported in those of chronic pain. Efficacy estimates for rubefacients are unreliable owing to a lack of good clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Mason L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC404501 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

Mason Lorna L Moore R Andrew RA Edwards Jayne E JE McQuay Henry J HJ Derry Sheena S Wiffen Philip J PJ

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20040319 7446

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates.<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks ...[more]

PMID: 15033879

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend a personalized, multimodal, and interdisciplinary approach for the treatment of chronic pain. Already in the acute treatment of postoperative pain, it can be useful to minimize risk factors for chronification. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.Aim of the workThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of aVNS in chronic and acute pain as well as its effect on medication intake.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was carried out on the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence and evaluated via the Jadad scale as well as their scientific validity, and then analyzed in terms of indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, efficacy, and safety.ResultsTwenty studies on chronic pain indications, ten studies on acute postoperative pain, as well as seven studies on experimental acute pain were identified and analyzed. The search revealed a total of n = 1105 aVNS-treated patients. The best evidence on the efficacy of aVNS is available for the indications chronic low back pain, chronic cervical syndrome, chronic abdominal pain, and chronic migraine as well as acute postoperative pain in oocyte aspiration, laparoscopic nephrectomy, and open colorectal surgery. Additionally a significant reduction in analgesic or opiate intake was evident in most studies. In three randomized controlled trials in chronic pain patients, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.ConclusionThis review indicates that aVNS can be a complementary and effective non-drug treatment for patients with chronic and acute postoperative pain. Future studies in these indications should focus on standardizing and optimizing treatment parameters, inclusion of quality-of-life outcome parameters, and longer follow-up periods to better understand the sustainable therapeutic effect of aVNS.

Project description:BackgroundDexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.MethodsPubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.ResultsThirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.

Project description:ObjectiveThe study objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial "embolization" (TAE) in the treatment of chronic "musculoskeletal pain" refractory to standard therapy.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for original research articles evaluating TAE in patients with musculoskeletal conditions from database inception to January 21, 2020. Search terms employed were as follows: "embolization", "pain", "knee osteoarthritis", joint replacement, epicondylitis, tenderness, inflammation, WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), microspheres, Embozene, geniculate artery, neovascularity, transcatheter, embolic, imipenem/cilastatin sodium, angiogenesis, and "musculoskeletal". Studies involving particle "embolization" for painful musculoskeletal conditions were included. Studies of TAE for hemarthrosis or malignancy-related "musculoskeletal pain" were excluded.ResultsThe primary search yielded 1,099 sources; 7 articles and 4 abstracts were included for data extraction. All were cohorts or case series, with low risk of bias and moderate to poor level of evidence. Heterogeneity between studies was high, precluding meta-analysis. The reviewed studies reported the safety and efficacy of TAE for the treatment of "knee osteoarthritis"; adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder; tendinopathy/enthesopathy of the knee, shoulder, elbow, and ankle; and cervical myalgia. All TAEs were reported as technically successful without major complications or subsequent serious adverse events, including no reported osteonecrosis, cutaneous ulceration, limb ischemia, cartilage degeneration, or myotendinous injury. TAE significantly reduced pain and improved function for all of the treated conditions, with durable response up to 24 months post procedure.ConclusionTAE appears to be a safe and effective treatment for some types of chronic refractory "musculoskeletal pain". Randomized placebo-controlled studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Project description:Background: Venous, arterial, diabetic and pressure ulcers, collectively known as chronic wounds, negatively impact individuals across psychological, social and financial domains. Chronic wounds can be painful and the nature, frequency and impact of pain can differ depending on wound aetiology, wound state and on numerous patient factors. While systemic pharmaceutical agents have some effect in managing pain, there is a need to examine topical agents applied to the wound bed for pain relief. The objective of this study is to examine and synthesise existing literature on the effectiveness of topical agents in managing pain in venous, diabetic, pressure, arterial and mixed venous/arterial ulcers. Methods: We will use Cochrane Systematic Review methodology to identify and synthesise eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of topical agents in reducing pain in chronic wounds. Embase, Medline, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched from inception to end of June 2022 without language limits. We will independently extract data on the pharmaceutical agent, participant demographics, aetiology, condition of the wound, and type, nature and frequency of pain using a pre-designed data extraction form. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be performed to address heterogeneity across studies if appropriate. Further stratification and analyses will be based on included study variables and outcomes. Discussion: Wound pain is primarily managed via systemic pharmaceutical agents. However, patients express reluctance regarding systemic analgesic drugs, fearing addiction. Additionally, persons with chronic wounds have co-morbidities including hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease and are already taking multiple medications. Topical analgesia can potentially mitigate some of the perceived disadvantages of systemic agents but the available range of these agents and their effectiveness in managing pain in chronic wounds is not so well understood. This review will focus on such agents across a range of the most common chronic wounds.

Project description:IntroductionAcute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method.ResultsA total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine.ConclusionsAvailable evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception to July 2021. Reference lists and previous reviews were also searched and experts were contacted.Eligibility criteria for study selectionOriginal research in English. Case reports and cross sectional studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Authors grouped interventions into five categories (pain self-management, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmacological and biomedical devices and interventions, opioid replacement treatment, and deprescription methods), estimated pooled effects using random effects meta-analytical models, and appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation).ResultsOf 166 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 130 (78%) were considered at critical risk of bias and were excluded from the evidence synthesis. Of the 36 included studies, few had comparable treatment arms and sample sizes were generally small. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for more than 90% (41/44) of GRADE outcomes, including for all non-opioid patient outcomes. Despite these limitations, evidence of moderate certainty indicated that interventions to support prescribers' adherence to guidelines increased the likelihood of patients discontinuing opioid treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.1), and that these prescriber interventions as well as pain self-management programmes reduced opioid dose more than controls (intervention v control, mean difference -6.8 mg (standard error 1.6) daily oral morphine equivalent, P<0.001; pain programme v control, -14.31 mg daily oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -21.57 to -7.05).ConclusionsEvidence on the reduction of long term opioid treatment for chronic pain continues to be constrained by poor study methodology. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence relating to possible harms. Agreed standards for designing and reporting studies on the reduction of opioid treatment are urgently needed.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020140943.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Data synthesis

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets