Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26863524›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back pain.

Wendy T M Enthoven, Pepijn D D M Roelofs, Richard A Deyo, Maurits W van Tulder, Bart W Koes

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06204952 (Effectiveness of Joins® for Managing Lumbar Facetogenic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 149 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
30.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06204952 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Joins® for Managing Lumbar Facetogenic Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorJeeyoun MoonRan2024 to 2026Enrolled76ConditionsFacet Joint SyndromeArmsJoins®(Clematidis Radix,Trichosanthes Root,Prunella Spike Extract), Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

149 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 392 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [2025 Multidisciplinary International Working Group Consensus Practice Guidelines: Sacroiliac joint complex pain interpretation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wendy T M EnthovenDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 3000CA.
Pepijn D D M Roelofs
Richard A Deyo
Maurits W van Tulder
Bart W Koes
Erasmus MC · NLOregon Health & Science University · USRotterdam University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.

objectivesTo determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSix of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalChronic PainDiclofenacDisability EvaluationHumansIbuprofenIndomethacinLow Back PainPain MeasurementPiroxicamRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDiclofenacIbuprofenIndomethacinPiroxicam

Identifiers

PMID26863524
PMCPMC7104791
OpenAlexW2271873799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.