SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009
Topical rubefacients for acute and chronic pain in adults.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salicylate-containing rubefacients for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Topical Pain Management: An Updated Review of Current Evidence and Emerging Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and mechanism of escin in improving the tissue microenvironment of blood vessel walls via anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant effects: Implications for clinical practice.Open life sciences · 2025Review
- Filling data gap for nicotinic acid, nicotinate esters and nicotinamide for the determination of permitted daily exposure by a category approach.Toxicological research · 2021Article
- Use of Camphor and Essential Oil Balms for Infants in Cambodia.Journal of tropical pediatrics · 2017Article
- Skin Matters: A Review of Topical Treatments for Chronic Pain. Part Two: Treatments and Applications.Pain and therapy · 2015Article
- AMPK: An emerging target for modification of injury-induced pain plasticity.Neuroscience letters · 2013Review
- Evolution of topical NSAIDs in the guidelines for treatment of osteoarthritis in elderly patients.Drugs & aging · 2012Review
- A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blinded comparative clinical study of five over-the-counter non-pharmacological topical analgesics for myofascial pain: single session findings.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2012Article
- Evaluation of a novel topical essential oxygen oil for the treatment of pain in acute tendinopathy and sprains.Muscles, ligaments and tendons journal · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.