Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19588430›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Topical rubefacients for acute and chronic pain in adults.

Paul Matthews, Sheena Derry, R Andrew Moore, Henry J McQuay

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul MatthewsSt Hugh's College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sheena Derry
R Andrew Moore
Henry J McQuay
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRubefacients (containing salicylates or nicotinamides) cause irritation of the skin, and are believed to relieve various musculoskeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. A non-Cochrane review in 2004 found limited evidence for efficacy.

objectivesTo review current evidence for efficacy and safety of topically applied rubefacients in acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, and reference lists of articles were searched; last search December 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacient for musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. Relative benefit or risk and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Acute and chronic conditions were analysed separately. MAIN

resultsSix placebo and one active controlled studies (560 and 137 participants) in acute pain, and seven placebo and two active controlled studies (489 and 90 participants) in chronic pain were included. All used topical salicylates. The evidence in acute conditions was not robust; using only better quality, valid studies, there was no difference between topical rubefacient and topical control, though overall, including lower quality studies, the NNT for clinical success compared with placebo was 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.9). In chronic conditions the NNT was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.0 to 13) compared with topical placebo. Adverse events and withdrawals occurred more often with rubefacients than placebo, but analyses were sensitive to inclusion of individual studies, so not robust. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries, and suggests that in chronic conditions their efficacy compares poorly with topical non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Topical salicylates seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. There is no evidence at all for topical rubefacients with other components.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdministration, TopicalAdultChronic DiseaseHumansIrritantsMusculoskeletal DiseasesPainSalicylatesIrritantsSalicylates

Identifiers

PMID19588430
PMCPMC4171120
OpenAlexW1553860643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.