SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2010
NSAIDs.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between oral NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 36 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: differences in efficacy among different oral NSAIDs, between oral and topical NSAIDs, and between oral NSAIDs and alternative analgesics; dose-response relationship of oral NSAIDs; and H(2) blockers, misoprostol, or proton pump inhibitors to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21733202PMC3217803W4302807908What 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.