SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023
Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of exercise therapy on dynamic posture control and self-report function in individuals with chronic ankle instability: a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Exercise interventions for nonspecific low back pain: a bibliometric analysis of global research from 2018 to 2023.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Research hotspots and frontiers in non-specific low back pain: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Peak Alpha Frequency Is Not Significantly Altered by Five Days of Experimental Pain and Repetitive Transcranial Stimulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Changes in Pregabalin Dispensing to Australians with Workers' Compensation Claims for Low Back Pain Following the Listing of Pregabalin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- The Hidden Anatomy of Low Back Pain: Uncovering the Impact of Mamillo-Accessory Ligament Ossification.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Changes in pharmacological management of low back pain: Real-world evidence from a 4-year comparison (2021-2025).Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- The cortical mechanisms underlying the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- [Update on Non-surgical Treatments for Lumbar Pain].Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2025Article
- Update on Non-surgical Treatments for Lumbar Pain.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- An Effectiveness and Tolerability of Tapentadol Nasal Spray in Low Back Pain.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The prevalence and burden of musculoskeletal disorders amongst Indigenous people in Pimicikamak, northern Manitoba, Canada: A community health survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the management of low back pain: a comprehensive meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and pain medicine education: Benefits and pitfalls for the medical trainee.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.
results98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.
conclusionsThe comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019145257.
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.