SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back pain.
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.
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.
Effectiveness of Joins® for Managing Lumbar Facetogenic Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Pilot Study
Who cites it
149 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 392 citations in OpenAlex.
- [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 · 2026Guideline
- Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Guideline
- Exercise prescription for improving chronic low back pain in adults: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Research hotspots and frontiers in non-specific low back pain: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy for sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of contextual factors on patient outcomes following conservative low back pain treatment: systematic review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Pooled it
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Update of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.The journal of pain · 2018Pooled it
- The influence of musculoskeletal pain disorders on muscle synergies-A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Failure to define low back pain as a disease or an episode renders research on causality unsuitable: results of a systematic review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2018Pooled it
- High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The safety and effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of sterile amniotic fluid filtrate compared to steroid for lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis: a phase I/II double-blinded randomized trial.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of tuina and physiotherapy to manage pain for patients with chronic low back pain: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of CT-Verified Deep Needling at the Foramen Acupoint for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pain research & management · 2026Trial
- A randomized placebo-controlled trial in healthy volunteers examining the effects of acetaminophen and NO-acetaminophen NCX 701 in human endotoxemia.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Comparison of Mesotherapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in the Management of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.La Tunisie medicale · 2025Trial
- Sustained acoustic medicine treatment of discogenic chronic low back pain: A randomized, multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2024Trial
89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.