Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain
Open Access
- 19 March 2004
- Vol. 328 (7446), 995
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38040.607141.ee
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.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reporting of outcomes in arthritis trials measured on ordinal and interval scales is inadequate in relation to meta-analysisAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2001
- The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trialBritish Homoeopathic journal, 2001
- Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back painPain, 2000
- Reporting of Adverse Effects in Clinical Trials Should Be Improved: Lessons from Acute Postoperative PainJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 1999
- Size is everything – large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effectsPain, 1998
- Topical NSAIDs for Musculoskeletal ConditionsDrugs, 1998
- Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research 1Pain, 1996
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Meta-Analysis in Clinical ResearchAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1987
- Inhibition of Prostaglandin Synthesis as a Mechanism of Action for Aspirin-like DrugsNature New Biology, 1971