Background: Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

Objectives: To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

Selection Criteria: We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

Main Results: We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

Authors' Conclusions: This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161726PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013581DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality evidence
44
clear difference
28
adverse events
24
low quality
24
nsaids
20
nsaids compared
20
global improvement
20
evidence clear
20
proportion participants
20
acute lbp
16

Similar Publications

Objective: Early education and care (ECEC) is part of the everyday life of most children in developed economies presenting exceptional opportunity to support nutrition and ongoing food preferences. Yet, the degree to which such opportunity is captured in policy-driven assessment and quality ratings of ECEC services is unknown.

Design: Abductive thematic analysis was conducted, guided by key domains of knowledge in nutrition literature and examining identified themes within these domains.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Use of health applications (apps) to support healthy lifestyles has intensified. Different app features may support effectiveness, including gamification defined as the use of game elements in a non-game situation. Whether health apps with gamification can impact behaviour change and cardiometabolic risk factors remains unknown.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Patients with cancer expect prolonged life (overall survival, OS) or better life (quality of life, QOL) from cancer treatments. However, majority of new cancer drugs are now being approved not based on improved OS or QOL, but based on surrogate endpoints such as tumor shrinkage or delayed tumor progression. These surrogate endpoints, including their validity as a proxy for overall survival, differ based on disease settings and lines of treatment but in general, most surrogate measures have weak correlation with outcomes that matter to patients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the return to sports, return to competition, Tegner score and anterior cruciate ligament-return to sports injury (ACL-RSI) scores between patients who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) and those who underwent ACLR alone.

Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library in July 2024, followed by data extraction and quality assessment. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis guidelines.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use and change in alcohol consumption: a systematic review.

EClinicalMedicine

December 2024

Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre (NDDC), Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.

Background: Despite the availability of various pharmacological and behavioural interventions, alcohol-related mortality is rising. This systematic review aimed to critically evaluate the existing literature on the association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use (GLP-1 RAs) and alcohol consumption.

Methods: Electronic searches were conducted on Ovid Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, clintrials.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!