| Title |
A systematic review of paracetamol for non-specific low back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, September 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-008-0783-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reece A. Davies, Christopher G. Maher, Mark J. Hancock |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the treatment of pain and disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of paracetamol in the treatment of pain and disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. A search for randomized controlled trials was conducted using the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. Trials were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials comparing paracetamol to no treatment, placebo or another treatment in patients with non-specific low back pain. Two of the authors independently assessed trials for methodological quality on the PEDro Scale and extracted data. Continuous pain and disability data were converted to a common 0-10 scale; ordinal data were dichotomized (e.g., no pain, pain). The data was analyzed using the MIX version 1.61 meta-analysis software. Out of 205 unique articles found in the searches, 7 eligible trials were identified. The trials enrolled a total of 676 participants with 5 investigating acute low back pain, 1 investigating chronic low back pain and 1 investigating both. No trial provided data comparing paracetamol to placebo and only one trial compared paracetamol to no treatment. In general the trials were small (only 1 trial had >25 subjects per group) and of low methodological quality (only 2 had a score above 6 on the quality scale). All but one of the trials provided imprecise estimates of the effects of treatment with confidence intervals spanning clinically important beneficial and also harmful effects of paracetamol. No trial reported a statistically significant difference in favor of paracetamol. There is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of paracetamol in patients with low back pain. There is a clear need for large, high quality randomized controlled trials evaluating paracetamol, to provide reliable evidence of paracetamol's effectiveness in patients with low back pain and to establish the validity of the recommendations in clinical guidelines. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,032,124
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#74
of 4,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,299
of 87,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 87,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.