-
Danish Medical Journal Oct 2020Although acute otitis media (AOM) is a very frequent illness in children, it remains unclear to what extent children with AOM benefit from antibiotics (ABX). This...
INTRODUCTION
Although acute otitis media (AOM) is a very frequent illness in children, it remains unclear to what extent children with AOM benefit from antibiotics (ABX). This systematic review aimed to clarify this subject by including randomised clinical trials (RCTs) from the pneumococcal vaccine era only.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search in four databases from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2019 for RCTs comparing ABX to placebo in patients with AOM. Pain was registered as the main outcome. Adverse events (AE), development of contralateral otitis media, tympanic membrane perforation, late AOM recurrence, abnormal tympanometry and time to resolution of middle ear effusion were registered as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Six publications based on five RCTs with 1,862 patients were included. The number needed to treat (NNT) to reduce pain varied from seven (pain at day 7-10) to 28 (pain at day 2-3). The NNT for preventing contralateral otitis was ten. AE were seen in every 13th patient treated with ABX.
CONCLUSIONS
ABX appears to have a limited effect on both primary and secondary outcomes compared with placebo. A substantial number of patients experienced AE. New RCTs are needed to further clarify the effect. Ideally, RCTs could be conducted in Danish general practices in collaboration with practicing ear, nose and throat specialists to obtain large unselected populations with high rates of vaccine coverage. Until more evidence is provided, ABX should be considered among children younger than two years of age with severe symptoms of AOM, i.e. fewer and affected well-being.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Infant; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Otitis Media; Tympanic Membrane Perforation
PubMed: 33215607
DOI: No ID Found -
Medicine May 2019The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not only at eliminating pain but further preventing its recurrence in long-term recovery scenarios. Physicians have complied with the appropriate management of acute and chronic pain; however, this short or long-term opioid exposure provides opportunities for long-term opioid misuse and abuse, leading to addiction of patients who receive an opioid prescription and/or diversion of this pain medication to other people without prescription. Several reviews attempted to summarize the epidemiology and management of opioid misuse, this integrative review seeks to summarize the current literature related with responsible parties of this opioid abuse crisis and discuss potential associations between demographics (ethnicity, culture, gender, religion) and opioid accessibility, abuse and overdose.
METHODS
We performed an extensive literature search in Google Scholar and Pub Med databases that were published between December 7, 1999 and January 9, 2018 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were referenced using medical subject headings (MeSH) that included "opioids", "over-prescription", "opioid consumption", or "opioid epidemic". The final review of all data bases was conducted on July 24, 2018.
RESULTS
A total of 7160 articles were originally identified. After 3340 duplicate articles were removed, 3820 manuscripts were removed after title and abstract screening. Following this, 120 manuscripts underwent eligibility selection with only 70 publications being selected as reliable full-texts addressing related factors surrounding the opioid crisis.
CONCLUSION
With approximately 100 million people suffering from both chronic and acute pain in the United States (US) in 2016, opiates will continue to remain a prominent class of medication in healthcare facilities and homes across the US. Over 66% of total overdose episodes in 2016 were opioid-related, a figure that attests to the severity and wide-spread nature of this issue. A three-point approach accentuating the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of both those currently affected and at-risk in the future may be the comprehensive solution.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Behavior, Addictive; Chronic Pain; Delivery of Health Care; Drug Overdose; Epidemics; Female; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Male; Middle Aged; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain Management; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 31096439
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015425 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diclofenac; Drug Eruptions; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Nervous System Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32805127
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3601 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Apr 2017A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available.
PURPOSE
To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention.
DATA EXTRACTION
One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications.
LIMITATIONS
Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed.
CONCLUSION
Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Neuromuscular Agents; Radiculopathy
PubMed: 28192790
DOI: 10.7326/M16-2458 -
International Journal of Sports... 2023There is a lack of specific research on the effect of percussive therapy (PT) delivered by massage guns on physiological adaptations. This systematic literature review...
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of specific research on the effect of percussive therapy (PT) delivered by massage guns on physiological adaptations. This systematic literature review investigates research conducted on the effects of PT interventions on performance in strength and conditioning settings, and on experiences of musculoskeletal pain.
PURPOSE
To determine the effect of PT delivered by massage guns on physiological adaptations: muscle strength, explosive muscle strength and flexibility, and experiences of musculoskeletal pain.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic literature review.
METHODS
Data sources (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Psychinfo, PubMed, SportDISCUS and OpenGrey) were searched from January 2006 onwards for full text literature in any language involving adult populations receiving PT delivered by massage guns, directly to any muscle belly or tendon, with comparisons to an alternative treatment, placebo or no treatment. Literature with outcomes relating to acute or chronic physiological adaptations in muscle strength, explosive muscle strength, flexibility or experiences of musculoskeletal pain were included. Articles were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and PEDro scores.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had limitations in methodological quality or reporting of findings but still included contextually-rich details that contributed to the overall narrative synthesis. A significant relationship was found between a single application of PT delivered by massage guns and an acute increase in muscle strength, explosive muscle strength and flexibility, with multiple treatments eliciting a reduction in experiences of musculoskeletal pain.
CONCLUSION
PT delivered by massage guns can help improve acute muscle strength, explosive muscle strength and flexibility, and reduce experiences of musculoskeletal pain. These devices may provide a portable and cost-effective alternative to other forms of vibration and interventions.
PubMed: 37020441
DOI: 10.26603/001c.73795 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain.
METHODS
We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Nonprescription Drugs; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26544675
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010794.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and lost work productivity. For the vast majority of people with LBP, no specific anatomical cause can be reliably identified. For these people with non-specific LBP there are numerous treatment options, few of which have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and disability. The muscle energy technique (MET) is a treatment technique used predominantly by osteopaths, physiotherapists and chiropractors which involves alternating periods of resisted muscle contractions and assisted stretching. To date it is unclear whether MET is effective in reducing pain and improving function in people with LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of MET in the treatment of people with non-specific LBP compared with control interventions, with particular emphasis on subjective pain and disability outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers were searched from inception to May and June 2014 together with reference checking and citation searching of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of MET on pain or disability in patients with non-specific LBP were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed where clinical homogeneity was sufficient. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 12 randomised controlled trials with 14 comparisons included in the review, with a total sample of 500 participants across all comparisons. Included studies were typically very small (n = 20 to 72), all except one were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and all reported short-term outcomes. For the purposes of pooling, studies were divided into seven clinically homogenous comparisons according to the patient population (acute or chronic LBP) and the nature of the control intervention. Most of the comparisons (five out of seven) included only one study, one comparison had two studies, and one comparison included seven studies.The meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that MET provided no additional benefit when added to other therapies on the outcomes of chronic pain and disability in the short-term (weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain 0.00, 95% CI -2.97 to 2.98 on a 100-point scale; standardised mean difference (SMD) for disability -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.08, 7 studies, 232 participants). There was low-quality evidence that MET produced no clinically relevant differences in pain compared to sham MET (mean difference (MD) 14.20, 95% CI -10.14 to 38.54, 1 study, 20 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for acute non-specific LBP, there was very low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -10.72, 95% CI -32.57 to 11.13, 2 studies, 88 participants) and functional status (MD 0.87, 95% CI -6.31 to 8.05, 1 study, 60 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -9.70, 95% CI -20.20 to 0.80, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -4.10, 95% CI -9.53 to 1.33, 1 study, 30 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the addition of MET to other interventions for acute non-specific LBP for the outcome of pain (MD -3, 95% CI -11.37 to 5.37, 1 study, 40 participants) and low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for functional status (MD -17.6, 95% CI -27.05 to -8.15, 1 study, 40 participants). For chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for the addition of MET to other interventions for the outcomes of pain (MD -34.1, 95% CI -38.43 to -29.77, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -22, 95% CI -27.41 to -16.59, 1 study, 30 participants). Lastly, there was low-quality evidence of no difference for the addition of MET to another manual intervention compared to the same intervention with other conservative therapies for the outcomes of pain (MD 5.20, 95% CI -3.03 to 13.43, 1 study, 20 participants) and functional status (MD 6.0, 95% CI -0.49 to 12.49, 1 study, 20 participants).No study reported on our other primary outcome of general well-being. Seven studies reported that no adverse events were observed, whereas the other five studies did not report any information on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of research related to testing the effectiveness of MET is poor. Studies are generally small and at high risk of bias due to methodological deficiencies. Studies conducted to date generally provide low-quality evidence that MET is not effective for patients with LBP. There is not sufficient evidence to reliably determine whether MET is likely to be effective in practice. Large, methodologically-sound studies are necessary to investigate this question.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscle Contraction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias
PubMed: 25723574
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009852.pub2 -
BMJ Open Feb 2017Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment using meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.
DATA
Controlled trials comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal treatment of permanent teeth were included. Trials needed to assess the risk of long-term complications (pain, infection, new/persisting/increasing periapical lesions ≥1 year after treatment), short-term pain or flare-up (acute exacerbation of initiation or continuation of root canal treatment).
SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) were screened, random-effects meta-analyses performed and trial-sequential analysis used to control for risk of random errors. Evidence was graded according to GRADE.
STUDY SELECTION
29 trials (4341 patients) were included, all but 6 showing high risk of bias. Based on 10 trials (1257 teeth), risk of complications was not significantly different in single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.35); weak evidence). Based on 20 studies (3008 teeth), risk of pain did not significantly differ between treatments (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.30); moderate evidence). Risk of flare-up was recorded by 8 studies (1110 teeth) and was significantly higher after single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.89); very weak evidence). Trial-sequential analysis revealed that firm evidence for benefit, harm or futility was not reached for any of the outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to rule out whether important differences between both strategies exist.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Dentists can provide root canal treatment in 1 or multiple visits. Given the possibly increased risk of flare-ups, multiple-visit treatment might be preferred for certain teeth (eg, those with periapical lesions).
Topics: Humans; Office Visits; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 28148534
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013115 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies within both the individual and the community. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 February 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 February 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 February 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 February 2018), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 26 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. A grey literature search was conducted using OpenGrey (to 26 February 2018) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 26 February 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data. A fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. The patients included in these trials had no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables reported in both studies were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects, as reported in one study, were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). Neither study reported quality of life measurements.Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessTwo studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided in conjunction with a surgical intervention. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth, while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality.Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscessWe found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Penicillin V; Periapical Abscess; Periapical Periodontitis; Pulpectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothache
PubMed: 30259968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010136.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database; the date of the last search was February 2016. We also searched the references lists of included studies and reviews, and sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' web sites.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and there had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five new studies for this update, which now has information from 10,631 participants in 39 studies, a 38% increase in participants from the earlier review; 33 studies compared a topical NSAID with carrier. All studies examined topical NSAIDs for treatment of osteoarthritis, and for pooled analyses studies were generally of moderate or high methodological quality, although we considered some at risk of bias from short duration and small size.In studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen were significantly more effective than carrier for reducing pain; about 60% of participants had much reduced pain. With topical diclofenac, the NNT for clinical success in six trials (2343 participants) was 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1 to 16) (moderate quality evidence). With topical ketoprofen, the NNT for clinical success in four trials (2573 participants) was 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3) (moderate quality evidence). There was too little information for analysis of other individual topical NSAIDs compared with carrier. Few trials compared a topical NSAID to an oral NSAID, but overall they showed similar efficacy (low quality evidence). These efficacy results were almost completely derived from people with knee osteoarthritis.There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical diclofenac compared with carrier or oral NSAIDs, but no increase with topical ketoprofen (moderate quality evidence). Reporting of systemic adverse events (such as gastrointestinal upsets) was poor, but where reported there was no difference between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were infrequent and not different between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence).Clinical success with carrier occurred commonly - in around half the participants in studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks. Both direct and indirect comparison of clinical success with oral placebo indicates that response rates with carrier (topical placebo) are about twice those seen with oral placebo.A substantial amount of data from completed, unpublished studies was unavailable (up to 6000 participants). To the best of our knowledge, much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen can provide good levels of pain relief beyond carrier in osteoarthritis for a minority of people, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. There is emerging evidence that at least some of the substantial placebo effects seen in longer duration studies derive from effects imparted by the NSAID carrier itself, and that NSAIDs add to that.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27103611
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007400.pub3