Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Machado, Gustavo C; Maher, Christopher G.; Ferreira, Paulo H.; Day, Richard O.; Pinheiro, Marina B.; Ferreira, Manuela L

doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210597

Cited by 157 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…‐ 10 A recent Cochrane systematic review (1825 participants) found that paracetamol does not result in better outcomes compared with placebo for patients with acute LBP, and its effect on chronic LBP is uncertain 24 . Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs are endorsed in three of the four guidelines (moderate quality evidence), 7 , 9 , 10 which is consistent with a recent systematic review demonstrating the efficacy of this class of medicine for both acute and chronic LBP 25 . However, the effect size for acute LBP is small (− 6.1 points [95% CI, − 9.5 to − 2.8] on a 0–100 scale) and some have argued that this may be too small to be clinically worthwhile 25 .…”

Section: Treating Non‐specific Low Back Painsupporting

confidence: 56%

Primary care management of non‐specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines

Almeida

Saragiotto

Richards

et al. 2018

Medical Journal of Australia

Self Cite

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in the past decade supports some major changes to the primary care management of non-specific low back pain (LBP). The present article summarises recommendations from recently published United Kingdom, Danish, Belgian and United States guidelines to alert readers to the important changes in recommendations for management, and the recommendations from previous guidelines that remain unchanged. Main recommendations: Use a clinical assessment to triage patients with LBP. Further diagnostic workup is only required for the small number of patients with suspected serious pathology. For many patients with non-specific LBP, simple first line care (advice, reassurance and self-management) and a review at 1-2 weeks is all that is required. If patients need second line care, non-pharmacological treatments (eg, physical and psychological therapies) should be tried before pharmacological therapies. If pharmacological therapies are used, they should be used at the lowest effective dose and for the shortest period of time possible. Exercise and/or cognitive behavioural therapy, with multidisciplinary treatment for more complex presentations, are recommended for patients with chronic LBP. Electrotherapy, traction, orthoses, bed rest, surgery, injections and denervation procedures are not recommended for patients with non-specific LBP. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: The major changes include: emphasising simple first line care with early follow-up; encouraging non-pharmacological treatments over pharmacological treatments; and recommending against the use of surgery, injections and denervation procedures.

show abstract

Section: Treating Non‐specific Low Back Painsupporting

confidence: 56%

Primary care management of non‐specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines

Almeida

Saragiotto

Richards

et al. 2018

Medical Journal of Australia

Self Cite

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a systematic review, Zulman et al found that pharmacologic interventions were assessed in 68.9% of the RCTs for older adults with complex health issues, whereas our results revealed that pharmacologic agents were planned for only 27.4% of the protocols. Perhaps this difference is due to the limited effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for LBP in the literature . More important than not showing the efficacy of pharmacologic agents, the exclusion of older adults from these CTs prevent the development of knowledge regarding adverse events …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exclusion of Older Adults from Ongoing Clinical Trials on Low Back Pain: A Review of the WHO Trial Registry Database

Nascimento

Ferreira

Poitras

et al. 2018

J American Geriatrics Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives The burden of low back pain (LBP) is high, especially for older adults who experience a higher number of years living with a disability. However, this population is not being well represented in clinical trials (CTs). This study analyzed the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) database from the World Health Organization to verify the future trend in the participation of older adults in registered CTs on LBP. Design We performed a cross‐sectional review of the ICTRP searching for prospective protocols planning interventions for LBP with registration dates from January 2015 through November 2018. From the protocols of the eligible studies, we extracted those planning to include older adults. Results A total of 167 protocols for CTs for LBP were planning to recruit participants older than 65 years. However, only five registries (2.99%; pooled sample = 169 participants) were designed to target participants specifically older than 65 years. The exclusion of older participants was not justified and imposed through an arbitrary upper‐age limit in 93.6% of the protocols. Most of the protocols are from single‐center studies, and a greater number are planned to be carried out in developed regions. Higher interest was in pharmacologic interventions, devices/technology, and physical rehabilitation. Conclusion Older adults with LBP will continue to be underinvestigated in CTs for LBP in the near future. In general, ongoing trials are small, planned in developed regions, and proposing pharmacologic interventions to deal with LBP. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:603–608, 2019.

show abstract

“…Sciatica is usually treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but there is a lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of these drugs [7]. As a result, some patients turn to acupuncture for which there is some evidence of efficacy in treating painful symptoms associated with sciatica [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Sciatica Following Uterine Cancer with Acupuncture: A Case Report

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For women, gynaecological or obstetrical disorders are second to disc prolapse as the most common cause of sciatica. As not many effective conventional treatments can be found for sciatica following uterine cancer, patients may seek assistance from complementary and alternative medicine. Here, we present a case of a woman with severe and chronic sciatica secondary to uterine cancer who experienced temporary relief from acupuncture.

show abstract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 157 publications

References 62 publications

Primary care management of non‐specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines

Primary care management of non‐specific low back pain: key messages from recent clinical guidelines

Exclusion of Older Adults from Ongoing Clinical Trials on Low Back Pain: A Review of the WHO Trial Registry Database

Treatment of Sciatica Following Uterine Cancer with Acupuncture: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About