-
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 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2013The aim of this systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the efficacy of orally administered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the efficacy of orally administered ketoprofen with that of ibuprofen and/or diclofenac.
METHODS
The literature was systematically reviewed in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The search was restricted to randomised clinical trials published in the Medline and Embase databases up to June 2011, and comparing the efficacy of oral ketoprofen (50-200 mg/day) with ibuprofen (600-1800 mg/day) or diclofenac (75-150 mg/day).
RESULTS
A total of 13 RCTs involving 898 patients met the inclusion criteria: eight comparing ketoprofen with ibuprofen, and five comparing ketoprofen with diclofenac. The results of the meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in efficacy in favour of ketoprofen. The difference between ketoprofen and the pooled ibuprofen/diclofenac data was also statistically significant (0.459, 95% CI 0.33-0.58; p=0.00) at all point-estimates of the mean weighted size effect. Ketoprofen was significantly superior to both diclofenac (mean = 0.422; 95% CI 0.19-0.65; p=0.0007) and ibuprofen (mean = 0.475; 95% CI 0.32-0.62; p=0.0000) at all point-estimates. Heterogeneity for the analysed efficacy outcome was not statistically significant in any of the meta-analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of orally administered ketoprofen in relieving moderate-severe pain and improving functional status and general condition was significantly better than that of ibuprofen and/or diclofenac.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketoprofen; Male; Pain; Pain Measurement; Patient Selection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23711416
DOI: No ID Found -
Systematic review of topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain.Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2020The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard...
The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard Cochrane methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Studies; date of the final search was November 2018. Included studies were randomized, double blinded, with ten or more participants per treatment arm. The primary outcome of "clinical success" was defined as participant-reported reduction in pain of at least 50%. Details of adverse events (AEs) were recorded. For acute pain, 23 studies (5170 participants) were included. Compared to placebo, number needed to treat (NNT) for different formulations were as follows: diclofenac plaster, 4.7 (95% CI 3.7-6.5); diclofenac plaster with heparin, 7.4 (95% CI 4.6-19); and diclofenac Emulgel, 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.1). 4.1% (78/1919) reported a local AE. For chronic pain, 21 studies (26 publications) with 5995 participants were included. Formulations included gel, solution with or without DMSO, emulsion and plaster. A clinical success rate of ∼60% (NNT 9.5 [95% CI 7-14.7]) was achieved with a variety of formulations. Local AEs (∼14%) were similar for both diclofenac and placebo. This systematic review of 11,000+ participants demonstrates that topical diclofenac is effective for acute pain, such as sprains, with minimal AEs. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac was also demonstrated in chronic musculoskeletal pain but with a higher NNT (worse) compared with acute pain. Formulation does play a part in effectiveness but needs further studies.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31944135
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1716703 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Jun 2017Diclofenac and indomethacin are the most studied drugs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, there are no prospective, randomized multicenter trials with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Diclofenac and indomethacin are the most studied drugs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, there are no prospective, randomized multicenter trials with a sufficient number of patients for correct evaluation of their efficacy. Our aim was to evaluate all prospective trials published in full text that studied the efficacy of diclofenac or indomethacin and were controlled with placebo or non-treatment for the prevention of PEP in adult patients undergoing ERCP.
METHODS
Systematic search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane) for relevant studies published from inception to 30 June 2016.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis of 4741 patients from 17 trials showed that diclofenac or indomethacin significantly decreased the risk ratio (RR) of PEP to 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P = .0001), number needed to treat (NNT) was 20, and the reduction of RR of moderate to severe PEP was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43-0.97; P = .0339). The efficacy of indomethacin compared with diclofenac was similar (P = .98). The efficacy of indomethacin or diclofenac did not differ according to timing (P = .99) or between patients with average-risk and high-risk for PEP (P = .6923). The effect of non-rectal administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was not significant (P = .1507), but the rectal route was very effective (P = .0005) with an NNT of 19. The administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was avoided in patients with renal failure. Substantial adverse events were not detected.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of rectally administered diclofenac or indomethacin before or closely after ERCP is inexpensive and safe and is recommended in every patient (without renal failure) undergoing ERCP. (Registration number: CRD42016042726, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.).
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Diclofenac; Humans; Indomethacin; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 28167118
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.033 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2023Seborrheic keratoses (SKs) are benign epidermal neoplasms presenting as waxy, brown to black papules and plaques. Patients often seek removal for cosmetic reasons or...
Seborrheic keratoses (SKs) are benign epidermal neoplasms presenting as waxy, brown to black papules and plaques. Patients often seek removal for cosmetic reasons or irritation. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for SKs. Studies involving any topical medication indicated for SK removal were retrieved from Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane. The final search was conducted on November 9, 2021, and 26 reports met inclusion criteria. A quality rating scheme was utilized to assess evidence quality. Heterogeneity of treatments and outcome measures precluded meta-analysis. Topical treatments that yielded a good-to-excellent response include hydrogen peroxide, Maxacalcitol 25 µg/g, BID Tazarotene 0.1% cream, 5% potassium dobesilate cream, 1% diclofenac sodium solution, urea-based solution, and 65% and 80% trichloroacetic acid. Local skin reactions were often mild and transient. Topical hydrogen peroxide showed the greatest evidence for clinical clearance of SKs, although there are no studies to our knowledge that directly compared hydrogen peroxide to current first-line treatments (e.g. cryotherapy or shave excision). The results of this review suggest viable and safe treatment of SK with topical therapies; however, there remains demand for topical treatments that reliably equate or exceed the efficacy of current first-line therapies.Key Points Are safe and efficacious topical treatments for seborrheic keratoses available? Topical treatments for seborrheic keratoses yield different responses and may be associated with local skin reactions. Topical hydrogen peroxide shows the greatest evidence for clinical clearance of seborrheic keratoses and may be a viable option for patients requesting noninvasive removal. No studies to our knowledge directly compare hydrogen peroxide to current first-line treatments. There remains demand for topical treatments that reliably equate or exceed the efficacy of current first-line therapies.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Topical; Cryotherapy; Hydrogen Peroxide; Keratosis, Seborrheic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36215682
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2133532 -
The Journal of Pain Nov 2023Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TBUP compared to other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A systematic search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until December 26, 2022. The search included randomized controlled trials comparing TBUP versus other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A certainty assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. The protocol for this review was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022318601). In total, 15 studies involving 1,205 participants were included that compared TBUP versus fentanyl (n = 2), celecoxib (n = 3), placebo (n = 2), tramadol (n = 5), diclofenac (n = 3), parecoxib (n = 1), and flurbiprofen (n = 1). Meta-analyses were conducted for 3 comparators that involved 2 studies each. There was no significant difference in pain between TBUP 10 mcg/h versus fentanyl 25 mcg/h (standardized mean difference [SMD] -.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -.86 to .81, P = .95, I = 85%). TBUP 10 mcg/h was associated with less pain compared to celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (SMD -.32, 95% CI -.58 to -.05, P = .02, I = 0%) and placebo (SMD -2.29, 95% CI -4.32 to -.27, P = .03, I = 94%). The GRADE assessment showed a very low certainty of evidence for all comparisons. There is insufficient evidence that TBUP improves pain control compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative pain. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of TBUP to other analgesics for postoperative pain. The results showed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of TBUP in this setting. The findings will help clinicians select the most appropriate opioid regimens for postoperative pain.
Topics: Humans; Celecoxib; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Fentanyl; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37442403
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.001 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 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 the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For 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 the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 26414123
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub3 -
Cureus Jul 2023Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive... (Review)
Review
Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive administration of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids has been employed, resulting in a notable decrease in postoperative complications like pain, facial swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis. This systematic review's primary goal was to investigate the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with dexamethasone and diclofenac in minimizing the post-surgical complications following the surgical extraction of the mandibular third molars. The systematic search was carried out to identify relevant literature in digital databases including PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 1990 to January 2022. The search used specific keywords. The randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dexamethasone and diclofenac or dexamethasone alone compared to diclofenac or placebo as preemptive analgesics were considered inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Case reports, literature reviews, letters to the editor, and non-English publications were not included. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts, and articles fulfilling the study criteria were included. After reading the full text and data collection, analysis was performed. The included article's bias was evaluated by the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A digital database search yielded a total of 207 articles. After excluding duplicates and articles written in languages other than English, 90 were removed. Based on the title and abstract, out of 177, 95 studies were excluded. After full-text reading of 22 articles, 17 were eliminated because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining five studies were found eligible and included in the systematic review. Four studies were of low risk, while one study had some concerns. Two studies evaluated the combination of dexamethasone with diclofenac, while three evaluated dexamethasone alone. Total samples included samples of 436 third-molar surgeries in 420 patients. There was a substantial decrease in the mean pain score and swelling measurement when diclofenac alone was compared with coadministration of diclofenac and dexamethasone. Preemptive administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac has been shown to effectively reduce pain and facial swelling, with the exception of trismus, in third-molar surgeries when compared to diclofenac alone. As a result, it is recommended to administer these drugs prior to the commencement of third-molar extraction. However, further research is mandatory, specifically good quality randomized controlled trials involving large cohorts, in order to assess any significant variations and validate these findings.
PubMed: 37654946
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42709 -
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Nov 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesize that topical NSAIDs will be safe and effective for relieving symptoms in patients with knee OA.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Randomized control trials that investigated topical NSAIDs that are widely available in many countries against both placebo and active controls in primary knee osteoarthritis were included. Studies that investigated other treatment modalities or treated nonspecific OA were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed to quantify the effect sizes and heterogeneity of the NSAIDs used.
RESULTS
Upon initial search, 259 records were identified with 18 studies remaining after duplicate removal, abstract, and full-text screening. All NSAIDs demonstrated statistically significant reduction in at least one parameter of OA symptoms. The majority of included studies (66.7%) evaluated diclofenac. In the meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMD) of topical NSAIDs versus placebo were calculated and interpreted as having moderate effect size for improvement in pain (0.365, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.240, 0.490) and physical function (0.354, 95% CI 0.268, 0.493). With regard to safety, studies that used patches or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the carrier reported a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) than other carriers. Skin AEs were higher in the treatment group than the placebo group and gastrointestinal AEs were lower in the treatment group than placebo.
CONCLUSION
Topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are the most rigorously studied topical NSAIDs in the treatment of knee OA and have demonstrated the most significant reduction in pain and improvement of function. Ibuprofen was effective for pain relief and physical function improvement, but more high-powered studies are needed to make a confident comparison of efficacy. Additionally, the 'carrier' used to deliver the topical NSAID has an impact on the adverse event profile. This has safety implications for prescribers and pharmaceutical development. Topical diclofenac is widely available internationally and is the only topical NSAID approved for over-the-counter use in the US. It should be recommended to patients as a first-line conservative management for OA of the knee.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain
PubMed: 33554694
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1886573