局部发红剂在成人急性和慢性疼痛。

文章的细节

引用

复制到剪贴板

马修斯P,德里,摩尔RA,人尽其才HJ

局部发红剂在成人急性和慢性疼痛。

科克伦数据库系统启2009 7月8;(3):CD007403。cd007403.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.。

PubMed ID

19588430 (在PubMed

]

文摘

背景:发红剂(含水杨酸盐或烟酰胺)引起过敏的皮肤,和被认为缓解各种肌肉骨骼疼痛。他们可在处方,处方的补救方法是常见的组件。non-Cochrane审查2004年发现有限的证据效力。目的:回顾当前局部发红剂应用的有效性和安全性的证据在成人急性和慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛。搜索策略:Cochrane中央,MEDLINE和EMBASE,牛津止痛数据库,和引用列表的文章搜索;2008年12月最后一次搜索。选择标准:随机、双盲、安慰剂或主动控制临床试验的局部发红剂肌肉骨骼疼痛在成人中,至少有10个参与者每次治疗的手臂,和报告结果接近7(最低3,最高10)对急性条件和14天(最少7天或更长时间的慢性疾病。数据收集和分析:两个独立审查作者的包容和质量评估试验,并提取数据。相对收益或风险和数量需要治疗受益或伤害(例数十分或NNH)计算95%置信区间(CI)。急性和慢性条件分别进行了分析。 MAIN RESULTS: Six placebo and one active controlled studies (560 and 137 participants) in acute pain, and seven placebo and two active controlled studies (489 and 90 participants) in chronic pain were included. All used topical salicylates. The evidence in acute conditions was not robust; using only better quality, valid studies, there was no difference between topical rubefacient and topical control, though overall, including lower quality studies, the NNT for clinical success compared with placebo was 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.9). In chronic conditions the NNT was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.0 to 13) compared with topical placebo. Adverse events and withdrawals occurred more often with rubefacients than placebo, but analyses were sensitive to inclusion of individual studies, so not robust. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries, and suggests that in chronic conditions their efficacy compares poorly with topical non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Topical salicylates seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. There is no evidence at all for topical rubefacients with other components.

beplay体育安全吗DrugBank数据引用了这篇文章

药物

Nicoboxil