2021
DOI: 10.3390/ph14040360
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Meta-Analysis of the Analgesic Efficacy of Single-Doses of Ibuprofen Compared to Traditional Non-Opioid Analgesics Following Third Molar Surgery

Abstract: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of ibuprofen in comparison with other traditional non-opioid analgesics after third molar surgery. A total of 17 full texts were identified in PubMed and assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool by two independent researchers. The sum of pain intensity differences, total pain relief, the overall evaluation, the number of patients requiring rescue analgesics, and adverse effects were collected.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main advantages of this study include an adequate methodology, rigorous and conservative statistical methods, and the available evidence with a lower risk of bias to perform a powerful pooled analysis [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 49 ]. Local administration of dexamethasone was performed via the submucosal, supraperiosteal, or intraligamentary routes, and different doses of dexamethasone were used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The main advantages of this study include an adequate methodology, rigorous and conservative statistical methods, and the available evidence with a lower risk of bias to perform a powerful pooled analysis [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 49 ]. Local administration of dexamethasone was performed via the submucosal, supraperiosteal, or intraligamentary routes, and different doses of dexamethasone were used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The influence of the weight of each study on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated through a sensitivity study. A p -value of ≤0.05 and odds ratio or a mean difference ≥ 1 (a positive or negative value on a two-sided test) within a 95% confidence interval was considered to be a statistically significant difference [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used 1,2 . The clinical trials with a high risk of bias (a red ball) were excluded from the qualitative and quantitative assessments 1,2 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,2 The clinical trials with a high risk of bias (a red ball) were excluded from the qualitative and quantitative assessments. 1,2 This stage included the participation of two blinded independent evaluators and the differences were resolved with the participation of a third researcher. [13][14][15]…”
Section: Assessment Of Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation