SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of Superficial Acupuncture Stimulation with Dynamic Mobilization in Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Trial
- Topical Diclofenac Versus Oral Ibuprofen Versus Diclofenac + Ibuprofen for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Study.Annals of emergency medicine · 2024Trial
- A randomized controlled trial evaluating the short-term efficacy of a single-administration intramuscular injection with the fixed combination of thiocolchicoside-diclofenac versus diclofenac monotherapy in patients with acute moderate-to-severe low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Trial
- Indomethacin has no effect on trigeminally provoked parasympathetic output.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2022Trial
- Expert consensus on the application of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for perioperative analgesia.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and therapies for low back pain.Bone research · 2026Article
- [Medical malpractice in gluteal NSAID injection-ineffective informed consent].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Effect of Acupuncture for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Imrecoxib Across Diverse Pain Conditions: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study of 30,214 Patients.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Changes in pharmacological management of low back pain: Real-world evidence from a 4-year comparison (2021-2025).Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- A Double-Blind Randomized Active-Controlled Trial Evaluating the Short-Term Efficacy of a Single Intramuscular Injection of a Fixed-Dose Combination Product Containing Diclofenac and Thiocolchicoside in Patients with Acute Moderate to Severe Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The role of preexisting analgesic use and self-efficacy for continued use of analgesics among patients with persistent low back pain.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Changes of the Lumbar Spine.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
- Immune microenvironment in intervertebral disc degeneration: pathophysiology and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- From catastrophizing to catalyzing: does pain catastrophizing modulate the beneficial impact of open-label placebos for chronic low back pain? A secondary analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Behavioral and biochemical changes associated with the analgesic effects of (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine alone and in combination with meloxicam following disk puncture in mice.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
backgroundAcute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.
objectivesTo assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. MAIN
resultsWe included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.
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.