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: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:BACKGROUND:Intravitreal injection (IVI) is a very common vitreoretinal procedure, and multiple injections are often required per patient. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of various local anesthetic techniques in reducing pain during injection. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted based on searches of Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the gray literature (Google Scholar). The end search date was February 19, 2016, across all databases. We classified pain by converting visual analog scale (VAS) scores (0-100 mm) into Jensen's classification levels: 0-4, no pain; 5-44, mild pain; 45-74, moderate pain; and 75-100, severe pain. An intervention was considered clinically significant when pain score change was >12 mm on a 100-mm scale. RESULTS:Eight studies out of 23 met the eligibility criteria. The total number of patients was 847. Most studies (5/8 [62.5%]) were at unclear risk of bias because of unclear randomization, thus providing only moderate evidence to this review. The anesthetic techniques included eye drops with proparacaine, tetracaine or cocaine, a lidocaine pledget or gel, and subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine or 0.75% levobupivacaine. No study comprised all of the techniques. Pain was mild (VAS scores, 5-44 mm) regardless of anesthetic technique. A clinically significant intervention (pain score change >12 mm) was found for only one study comparing proparacaine drops, lidocaine gel, and subconjunctival lidocaine; in that study, a subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine provided the greatest pain reduction. A meta-analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Patient pain during IVI under topical anesthesia is mild regardless of anesthetic technique. A subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine could be an option for highly sensitive patients. However, with moderate level of evidence, no single anesthetic technique could be defined as the best option for IVI.

Project description:BackgroundNon-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.ObjectivesTo summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).ResultsThirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n?=?10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2?=?6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2?=?50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2?=?46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.LimitationsOnly a small number of studies were available.ConclusionsTimely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer is a major public health issue in the world, especially in developing countries. It can be prevented through vaccination against HPV (primary prevention) and through screening and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) (secondary prevention). Surgical methods for treatment of CIN are linked to complications such as bleeding and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Furthermore, these methods are not generally available in resource-poor settings. Therefore, topical agents for local application on the cervix have been used since decades to overpass complications and limitations of the surgical methods.AimsReview of the literature on the efficacy of commercially available biological agents used for topical treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).MethodsA systematic search through PubMed and the Cochrane database was performed up to December 2017, using the medical subheadings (MesH) for topical agent, treatment, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria have been used for the selection of eligible clinical studies. Clinical studies containing a minimum of 20 women, aged 18-50 with a diagnosis of CIN 1-3, and at least a 4 weeks follow-up after the end of the topical treatment were included.ResultsThe initial electronic database search resulted in a total of 849 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 62 articles were selected as potential studies. Of these, six articles were included in the review after reading the full text: two were on 5-FluoroUracil, two on trans retinoic acid, one on Imiquimod, and one on Cidofovir. The reported regression/remission rates for CIN differed among studies. In CIN2 patients, the overall remission rate ranged between 43 and 93% for the active agents.ConclusionAmong the topical agents studied, 5-FluoroUracil showed good remission rates above 80%. Varying results seen in this review is due to the differences in quality of the design between studies. Large-scale and less biaised studies are needed to elucidate the true efficacy and safety of topical agents in the treatment of CIN.

Project description:Acutely painful procedures are commonplace. Current approaches to pain most often involve pharmacotherapy, however, there is interest in virtual reality (VR) as a non-pharmacological alternative. A methodologically rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking.Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, NIHR Centre for Review and Dissemination, Proquest, the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 5 November 2017. Included studies were randomised with an experimental trial design, included a non-VR control group and examined the efficacy of VR with regards to an acutely painful clinical intervention. Bias was assessed along Cochrane guidelines, with performance bias not assessed due to the non-blindable nature of VR. We extracted summary data for maximal pain score and used standard mean difference DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis (RevMan 5.3). This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42017058204).Of the 12,450 studies identified, 20 studies were eligible for the systematic review. No trials reported in sufficient detail to judge their risk of bias, and 10 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. 16 studies (9 randomised controlled trials, 7 crossover studies) examining 656 individuals were included in quantitative synthesis. Pain scales were heterogenous, but mostly employed 100-point scales. Across all trials, meta-analysis was suggestive of a -0.49 (95%CI -0.83 to -0.41, p = 0.006) standardised mean difference reduction in pain score with VR. However there was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity (?2 p<0.001, I2 81%, 95%CI for I2 70-88%), driven by randomised studies, with substantial clinical heterogeneity.These data suggest that VR may have a role in acutely painful procedures, however included studies were clinically and statistically heterogenous. Further research is required to validate findings, establish cost efficacy and optimal clinical settings for usage. Future trials should report in accordance with established guidelines.

Project description:IntroductionGabapentin has potential analgesic benefits in patients with neuropathic pain, such as post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic peripheral neuropathy neuropathic pain. However, its efficacy in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) remains contradictory. In the present study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain the efficacy of this treatment.MethodsWe systematically reviewed RCTs published in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, up to July 2021. These articles compared gabapentin with placebo or any other active treatment for CPP in women, with 'the change in pain scores from the baseline during the first 3 and 6 months of treatment' taken as the primary outcome. We considered reductions equivalent to 1.0 cm for primary outcomes to be clinically important.ResultsFour studies, comprising 469 participants, were included in our meta-analysis. Results revealed that the gabapentin group had significantly higher change in pain intensity scores from baseline to 3 months [weighted mean difference (WMD) - 0.61 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.97 to - 0.25; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009] and 6 months (WMD - 1.38 cm; 95% CI - 1.89 to - 0.88; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001), relative to the control group. The difference of 6-month pooled result was more clinically important. Results from analysis of secondary outcomes showed that gabapentin had no beneficial efficacy during the first 3 months of treatment. Although gabapentin treatment was associated with a higher risk of dizziness and somnolence, no statistically significant differences were observed with regards to the total incidence of adverse events.ConclusionsOverall, gabapentin could be a potential treatment option for CPP in women. However, as a pilot study, further studies are needed to explore the longer-term benefits and definite safety of this therapy in the future.Registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42021249421.

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