Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology1991
Double-blind, placebo controlled comparison of paracetamol and paracetamol plus codeine--a quantitative evaluation by laser induced pain.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracetamol-codeine combinations versus paracetamol alone: a systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Pooled it
- A simple pain model for the evaluation of analgesic effects of NSAIDs in healthy subjects.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2003Trial
- Analgesic Action of Acetaminophen via Kv7 Channels.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Paracetamol: a focus for the general pediatrician.European journal of pediatrics · 2014Review
- Electroencephalography and analgesics.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Review
- A new high-absorption-rate Paracetamol 500-mg formulation: a comparative bioavailability study in healthy volunteers.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2003Article
- Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in neonates.Paediatric drugs · 2003Review
- Paracetamol plasma and cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics in children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present double-blind, placebo controlled, three-way cross over study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of single oral doses of paracetamol 1.0 g and paracetamol 1.0 g plus codeine 60 mg. Pain threshold and brain evoked potentials to laser stimulation were determined hourly for 6 h in 12 healthy volunteers. Pain threshold was significantly elevated compared to placebo 1 and 2 h after paracetamol ingestion. Paracetamol 1.0 g plus codeine 60 mg was superior to placebo 1 to 6 h after medication. Only at 1 and 2 h after ingestion the combined drug was better than paracetamol. The evoked potentials were significantly depressed compared to placebo 2 and 4 h after paracetamol. The combination of paracetamol and codeine was superior to placebo 1 to 6 h after ingestion. The potentials showed no difference between the two active drugs. The total analgesic effect (approximation of area under the time-efficacy curve), showed that the combined drug was superior to plain paracetamol. A higher incidence of adverse effects in 10 of the 12 subjects was observed after ingestion of the combined drug compared to plain paracetamol (1 of 12). Paracetamol appears to exert part of its action by a central effect. There was at least 1 h between the peak plasma concentration of paracetamol and the peak hypoalgesia.
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.