Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Topical rubefacients for acute and chronic pain in adults

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Algozzine 1982 {published data only}

Algozzine GJ, Stein GH, Doering PL, Araujo OE, Akin KC. Trolamine salicylate cream in osteoarthritis of the knee. Journal of the American Medical Association 1982;247(9):1311‐3.

Camus 1975 {published data only}

Camus JP. Action of Myrtécaïne associated with Salicylate with Diéthylamine, in local treatment, in various rheumatic conditions [Action de la Myrtécaïne associée au Salicylate de Diéthylamine, en traitement local, dans diverses affections rhumatismales]. Rheumatologie 1975;27:61‐6.

Diebschlag 1987 {published data only}

Diebschlag W, Nocker W. The effect of topical treatment in the treatment of disease in ankle sprains. Arzneimittelforschung 1987;37(9):1076‐81.

Frahm 1993 {published data only}

Frahm E, Elsasser U, Kämmereit A. Topical treatment of acute sprains. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1993;47(6):321‐2.

Geller 1980 {published data only}

Geller O. Comparison of a salicylate‐heparin gel with a monosubstance preparation. Results of a double‐blind cross‐over study. Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift 1980;122(36):1231‐2.

Ginsberg 1987 {published data only}

Ginsberg F, Famaey JP. A double‐blind study of topical massage with Rado‐Salil ointment in mechanical low‐back pain. Journal of International Medical Research 1987;15(3):148‐53.

Golden 1978 {published data only}

Golden EL. A double‐blind comparison of orally ingested aspirin and a topically applied salicylate cream in the relief of rheumatic pain. Current Therapeutic Research 1978;24(5):524‐9.
Shamszad M, Perkal M, Golden EL, Marlin RL. Two double‐blind comparisons of a topically applied salicylate cream and orally ingested aspirin in the relief of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Current Therapeutic Research ‐ Clinical and Experimental 1986;39(4):470‐9.

Ibanez 1988 {published data only}

Ibanez E, Carlos Bango J, Borras G, Ginebreda I, Leal Graciani A, et al. Multicentric study of fepradinol in sports traumatology. Current Therapeutic Research ‐ Clinical and Experimental 1988;44(1):61‐71.

Lester 1981 {published data only}

Lester AA. Management of sprained ankles. A double‐blind study. The Practitioner 1981;225(1356):935‐6.

Lobo 2004 {published data only}

Lobo SL, Mehta N, Forgione AG, Melis M, Al‐Badawi E, Ceneviz C, et al. Use of Theraflex‐TMJ topical cream for the treatment of temporomandibular joint and muscle pain. Cranio 2004;22(2):137‐44.

Rothhaar 1982 {published data only}

Rothhaar J, Thiel W. Percutaneous gel therapy of blunt athletic injuries. Die Medizinische Welt 1982;33(27):1006‐10.

Rutner 1995 {published data only}

Rutner M, Fitzek J, Jahnel‐Kracht H, Otto J, Krause W. Therapy of rheumatic disease with a hydroxyethylsalicylate gel. Results of 2 clinical studies of effectiveness and bioavailability. Fortschritte der Medizin 1995;113(8):111‐3.

Shackel 1997 {published data only}

Shackel NA, Day RO, Kellett B, Brooks PM. Copper‐salicylate gel for pain relief in osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Journal of Australia 1997;167(3):134‐6.

Stam 2001 {published data only}

Stam C, Bonnet MS, van Haselen RA. The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi‐centre, randomised, double‐blind comparative clinical trial. British Homeopathic Journal 2001;90(1):21‐8.

von Bach 1979 {published data only}

Bach GL, Fotiades P. Enelbin rheumatism ointment in rheumatic diseases. Results of a double‐blind study for the determination of efficacy. Fortschritte der Medizin 1979;97(28):1249‐52.

Wanet 1979 {published data only}

Wanet G. Controlled clinical study of a topic associating nopoxamine with diethylamine salicylate (Algésal suractivé) in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Journal Belge de Médecine Physique et de Réhabilitation 1979;2(2):119‐26.

References to studies excluded from this review

Crielaard 1986 {published data only}

Crielaard JM, Franchimont P. Value of using Reparil‐gel in sports traumatology. Acta Belgica. Medica Physica 1986;9(4):287‐98.

Dettoni 1982 {published data only}

Dettoni A, Olivero C, Sibelli P. Activity of the combination of escin, heparin sodium and diethylamine‐salicylate as compared with the activity of the single components in minor traumatology. Giornale di Clinical Medica 1982;63(4):279‐83.

He 2006 {published data only}

He C, Chen P, Wang X, Ding M, Lan Q, Han M. The clinical effect of herbal magnetic corsets on lumbar disc herniation. Clinical Rehabilitation 2006;20(12):1058‐65.

Heindl 1977 {published data only}

Heindl I, Lorenz D, Sieberns S, Blumberger W. Clinical trial of the new percutaneously active antirheumatic etofenamate. Summarising report. Arzneimittelforschung 1977;27(6B):1357‐63.

Howell 1955 {published data only}

Howell TH. Relief of rheumatic pains with diethylamine salicylate cream: a clinical trial. British Journal of Physical Medicine 1955;18(3):62‐3.

Jolley 1972 {published data only}

Jolley HM, Torneck CD, Siegel I. A topical choline salicylate gel for control of pain and inflammation in oral conditions‐‐a controlled study. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 1972;38(2):72‐4.

Kantor 1990 {published data only}

Kantor TG, Altman RD. Assessment of topical agents for the pain of osteoarthritis of the hand. Pain 1990;supp5:Ab S54.

Kleinschmidt 1975 {published data only}

Kleinschmidt Von J, Lührs M, Drexel H. The valuation of the therapeutic results obtained with mobility gel applied cutaneously in a double blind study. Fortschritte der Medizin 1975;93(19):986‐90.

Pasila 1980 {published data only}

Pasila M, Visuri T, Sundholm A. Recovery of recent ankle sprains: a comparison between the value of the Movelat and its base cream. Rheumatology and Rehabilitation 1980;19(4):256‐7.

Shamszad 1986 {published data only}

Shamszad M, Perkal M, Golden EL, Marlin RL. Two double‐blind comparisons of a topically applied salicylate cream and orally ingested aspirin in the relief of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Current Therapeutic Research ‐ Clinical and Experimental 1986;39(4):470‐9.

von Batky 1971 {published data only}

von Batky ES. The treatment of sport and accident injuries with a new gel preparation. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin 1971;47(25):1281‐2.

Weisinger 1970 {published data only}

Weisinger E, Singh S, Doyle JL. Analysis of purported rubefacient qualities in a new toothpaste. Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association 1970;42(1):24‐5.

Additional references

BNF 2008

British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. 55. London: BMJ, RPS, 2008.

Cook 1995

Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995;310(6986):452‐4.

Derry 2008a

Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ, Lloyd R. Topical capsaicin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007393]

Derry 2008b

Derry S, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Topical NSAIDS for chronic muskuloskeletal pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007400]

Jadad 1996a

Jadad AR, Carroll D, Moore A, McQuay H. Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research. Pain 1996;66(2‐3):239‐46.

Jadad 1996b

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐12.

L'Abbé 1987

L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta‐analysis in clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine 1987;107:224‐33.

Martin 2004

Martin D, Valdez J, Boren J, Mayersohn M. Dermal absorption of camphor, menthol, and methyl salicylate in humans. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2004;44(10):1151‐7.

Mason 2004a

Mason L, Moore RA, Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Derry S, Wiffen PJ. Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. BMJ 2004;328(7446):995.

Mason 2004b

Mason L, Moore RA, Edwards JE, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2004;5:28. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2474‐5‐28]

Mason 2004c

Mason L, Moore RA, Derry S, Edwards JE, McQuay HJ. Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain. BMJ 2004;328(7446):991. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38042.506748.EE]

Massey 2008

Massey T, Derry S, Moore RA, Wiffen P, McQuay HJ. Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007402]

Moore 1998

Moore RA, Tramèr MR, Carroll D, Wiffen PJ, McQuay HJ. Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. BMJ 1998;316(7128):333‐8.

Moore 1998b

Moore RA, Gavaghan D, Tramèr MR, Collins SL, McQuay HJ. Size is everything‐large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects. Pain 1998;78(3):209‐16.

Moore 2008

Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Topical Agents in the Treatment of Rheumatic Pain. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America 2008;34:415–432. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2008.03.006]

Morris 1995

Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risk, odds ratios and standardised ratios and rates. In: Gardner MJ, Altman DG editor(s). Statistics with confidence ‐ confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. BMJ, 1995:50‐63.

Morton 2002

Morton I, Hall J. The Royal Society of Medicine: Medicines. 6th Edition. London: Bloomsbury, 2002.

Nagy 2004

Nagy I, Sántha P, Jancsó G, Urbán L. The role of the vanilloid (capsaicin) receptor (TRPV1) in physiology and pathology. European Journal of Pharmacology 2004;500(1‐3):351‐69.

NICE 2008

Osteoarthritis: the care and management of osteoarthritis in adults. NICE Clinical Guideline 592008.

Nilius 2007

Nilius B, Owsianik G, Voets T, Peters JA. Transient receptor potential cation channels in disease. Physiological Reviews 2007;87(1):165‐217.

PACT 2006

PrescrIption Cost Analysis, England. 2006ISBN: 1‐84636‐035‐62006.

Rothacker 1994

Rothacker D, Difigilo C, Lee I. A clinical trial of topical 10% trolamine salicylate in osteoarthritis. Current Therapeutic Research ‐ Clinical and Experimental 1994;55(5):584‐97.

Rothacker 1998

Rothacker D, Lee I, Littlejohn III TW. Effectiveness of a single topical application of 10% trolaminesalicylate cream in the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis. Journal of Clinical Rheumatology 1998;4(1):6‐12.

Smith 2000

Smith LA, Oldman AD, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back pain. Pain 2000;86:119‐32.

Stanos 2007

Stanos SP. Topical agents for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2007;33(3):342‐55.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Algozzine 1982

Methods

RCT DB crossover groups

Duration 7 days in each phase

Participants

Chronic osteoarthritis of the knee (mean 17 years duration, not secondary to other arthritis or acute trauma, confirmed by X‐ray)

All patients had at least moderate pain

N = 26 (one excluded from analysis due to unrelated medical problem)

M = 24, F = 1

Mean age 62 years (range 35‐72)

Interventions

Triethanolamine salicylate (10%) cream (Myoflex), n = 25

Placebo cream, n = 25

3.5 g x 4 daily to affected knee

Outcomes

Preferred drug or placebo or neither based on:

Pain 4 point scale

Pain 11 point scale

Patient assessed pain relief 5 point scale

Physician assessed pain relief 5 point scale

Physician assessed tenderness 4 point scale

Patient preference

Continuous measures of swelling, stiffness, and activity

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 10

Ineligible for inclusion if salicylates within two days before test period

Eligible if on other drug treatment, if taking NSAIDs included only if stable on stated dose for preceding month

No change in dose of existing drugs or new analgesics started during the study period

No intra‐articular steroids within last 6 weeks

No other treatment (heat, exercise, massage) during study period

Camus 1975

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 10 days

Participants

Musculoskeletal pain (e.g. tendon, muscle, or ligament injury)

Patients had moderate or mild pain

N = 20

M = 8, F = 12

Age range 19‐86 years

Interventions

Diethylamine salicylate (10%), myrtecaine (1%) cream (Algesal Suractive), n = 10

Placebo cream, n = 10

x 3 daily at the site of pain

Outcomes

Rest pain 4 point scale

Functional limitation 5 point scale

Presence of:

Spontaneous pain

Swelling

Heat

Composite score based on above (20 points)

Improvement in:

Rest pain 4 point scale

Composite score

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 10

Myrtecaine (Nopoxamine) is a local anaesthetic agent

Diebschlag 1987

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 15 days

Assessment on days 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 29

Participants

Acute ankle sprain presenting within 48 h

Injury severity rated moderate or severe

N = 80

M = 63, F = 17

Mean age 27 years (range 18‐50)

Interventions

Salicylic acid (2%), adrenal extract (1%), mucopolysaccharide polysulphate (.2%) ointment (Mobilat), n = 40

Placebo ointment, n = 40

10‐15 cm x 2 daily

Outcomes

Pressure distribution on walking

Swelling

Ankle joint movement

Rest pain 100 mm VAS

Movement pain 100 mm VAS

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 12

Suprarenal extract results in 0.02% corticosteroids

Frahm 1993

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 11 days

Assessment at on days 2, 4, 9, 11

Participants

Acute ankle or knee sprain within 24 h

Patients had moderate or slight pain

N = 156

M = 98, F = 58

Mean age 32 years (range 18‐65)

Interventions

Salicylic acid (2%), mucopolysaccharide polysulphate (.2%) cream (Movelat), n = 78

Placebo cream, n = 78

10 cm x 2 daily

Outcomes

Movement pain 100 mm VAS

Rest pain 100 mm VAS

Swelling

Physician global assessment 4 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 10

No concomitant treatment allowed except max 1 g paracetamol x3 daily

Geller 1980

Methods

RCT DB active control crossover groups

Duration 7 days in each phase

4 day washout between phases

Participants

Chronic musculoskeletal disorders (extra‐articular, articular, and vertebral musculoskeletal illness, some sprains)

N = 50

M = 25, F = 25

Average age 49 years

Interventions

Diethylamine salicylate (10%), sodium heparin (50 IU/g), menthol (0.2%) gel (Dolo‐Menthoneurin), n = 25

Etofenamate (5%), n = 25

Outcomes

Spontaneous pain 4 point scale

Tenderness 4 point scale

Swelling 4 point scale

Movement restriction 4 point scale

After first phase:

Patient global assessment 4 point scale

Physician global assessment 4 point scale

After second phase:

Patient global assessment 3 point scale

Physician global assessment 3 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB1 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 7

Etofenamate is an NSAID

Adverse events reported for both phases combined

Ginsberg 1987

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 14 days

Assessment on days 3, 14

Participants

Acute mechanical low back pain

N = 40

Interventions

Methylsalicylate (2.6%), ethylsalicylate (1.8%), glycol salicylate (.9%), salicylic acid (.9%), camphor (0.4%), menthol (5.5%), capsicum oleoresin (1.5%) ointment (Rado‐Salil), n = 20

Placebo ointment, n = 20

Frequency of application not stated

Outcomes

Pain 100 mm VAS

Duration of confinement to bed

Muscular reflex contracture 5 point scale

Spine mobility:

Schober's index

Finger‐floor distance

Lumbar extension

Patient global assessment 5 point scale

Physician global assessment 5 point scale

Number of rescue paracetamol (250 mg) tablets

Amount of ointment used

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 9

No analgesics, anti‐inflammatories, or physical treatments allowed other than rescue medication (max 45 x 250 mg paracetamol)

Golden 1978

Methods

RCT DB double dummy active control parallel groups

Duration 7 days

Daily assessment

Participants

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (articular, e.g. osteoarthritis, and non‐articular, e.g. bursitis) for at least weeks (mean 3 years' duration, range weeks to 25 years)

Baseline pain at least mild to moderate

N = 40

M = 10, F = 30

Mean age 53 years (range 20‐81)

Interventions

Triethanolamine salicylate (10%) cream (Aspercreme) + placebo tablets, n = 20

Aspirin (325 mg) tablets + placebo cream, n = 20

Cream applied to affected area and two tablets taken x 4 daily (mealtimes and bedtime)

Outcomes

Pain relief 4 point scale

Speed of pain relief

Pain severity

Patient global assessment of pain relief 4 point scale

Physician global assessment of pain relief 4 point scale

Combined physician and patient global assessment 4 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 9

One week washout of aspirin before trial

All other anti‐inflammatories allowed during trial

Excluded if pre‐existing high dose aspirin therapy

Ibanez 1988

Methods

RCT DB active control parallel group

Duration 12 days

Assessment on days 4, 8, 12

Participants

Slight articular and extra‐articular sports injuries in last 24 h

N = 137

Average age 23 years (range 13‐59)

Interventions

Benzydamine salicylate (6%) spray (Benzasal), n = 35

Fepradinol (6%) spray (Dalgen), n = 102

One spray x 4 daily

Outcomes

Pain on passive movement 5 point scale

Pain on active movement 5 point scale

Inflammation 5 point scale

Functional limitation 5 point scale

Time to cure

Physician global assessment 5 point scale

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB1 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 7

Baseline scores for inflammation differed between the two groups

Fepradinol is an NSAID

Lester 1981

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 7 days

Assessment on days 3, 7

Participants

Sprained ankle

Baseline pain slight to severe

N = 42

M = 20, F = 22

Age range 15 to 60+ years

Interventions

Salicylic acid (2%), adrenal extract (1%), mucopolysaccharide polysulphate (0.2%) gel (Movelat), n = 20

Placebo gel, n = 22

Outcomes

Relief of pain

Time to return to normal activity

Adverse events

Composite score based on above plus ankle ROM, swelling

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB1 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 11

Lobo 2004

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 15 days

Assessment on days 10, 15, 20

Participants

Temporomandibular disorders

N = 52

M = 5, F = 47

Interventions

Methylsalicylate, copper and zinc pyrocarboxylate, lysine‐aspartic acid, herbal extracts cream (Theraflex‐TMJ), n = 26

Placebo cream, n = 26 

1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon cream onto affected area x 2 daily (morning, bedtime)

Outcomes

Spontaneous pain 10 cm VAS

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB1 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 7

Rothhaar 1982

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 9 days

Assessment on days 3, 7, 9

Participants

Sports injuries

Baseline pain mild to severe

N = 100

M = 49, F = 32

Average age 30 years (range 14‐58)

Interventions

Escin 1%, diethylamine salicylate 5% (Reparil‐Gel), n = 50

Placebo gel, n = 50

Gel applied at least x 4 daily to affected area

Outcomes

Spontaneous pain 4 point scale

Loaded pain 4 point scale

Movement pain 4 point scale

Pain on pressure 4 point scale

Tightness 4 point scale

Temperature 4 point scale

Haematoma 4 point scale

Swelling 4 point scale

Ratio of range of movement to unaffected limb

Ratio of size to unaffected limb

Patient global assessment 5 point scale

Physician global assessment 5 point scale

Improvement in spontaneous pain 3 point scale

Improvement in movement pain 3 point scale

Remission in spontaneous pain 3 point scale

Remission in movement pain 3 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Score: 8

19 patients had no data and were not included

Rutner 1995

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 14 days

Assessment days 7, 14

Participants

Non‐articular rheumatic back pain

N = 113

Average age 56 years

Interventions

Glycol salicylate 10% gel (Phardol‐Mono), n = 54

Placebo gel, n = 59

5 cm x 3 or x 4 on affected area

Outcomes

Drop‐out pain‐free at day 14

Drop‐out pain‐free at day 7

2 point reduction on 10 cm VAS at day 14

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1 DB2 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Score: 12

16 patients excluded due to high rheumatoid factor levels

Shackel 1997

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 4 weeks

Assessment weeks 2, 4

Participants

Osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

N = 116

M = 52, F = 64

Mean age 61 years (range 19‐86)

Interventions

Copper (0.4%) salicylate (4%) gel in vehicle (methanol 2%, camphor 1%, eucalyptus oil 1%), n = 58

Placebo vehicle gel, n = 58

1.5 g x 2 daily applied to inner forearm

Outcomes

Rest pain 100 mm VAS

Movement pain 100 mm VAS

Patient rated efficacy 4 point scale

Investigator rated 4 point scale

Use of rescue medication

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Score: 11

Gel applied remote to site of injury

500 mg paracetamol rescue medication provided

Excluded if:

NSAIDs in last 7 days

Corticosteroids in last 28 days

Alterations in arthritis treatment in last 28 days

Stam 2001

Methods

RCT DB pseudo‐active control (assumed to be placebo in this review), parallel groups

Duration 7 days

Daily assessment

One day washout if NSAIDs or other analgesia taken in last 24 h

Participants

Acute low back pain in last 72 h

Moderate to severe pain on movement

N = 161

M = 87, F = 74

Mean age 41 years

Interventions

Glycol salicylate (10%), methylnicotinate (1%), capsicum oleoresin (0.1%), histamine hydrochloride (0.1%) (Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA), n = 78

Comfrey (10%), poison ivy (5%), marsh Labrador tea (5%) gel (Spiroflor SRL), n = 83

3 g x3 daily applied to affected area

Outcomes

80% reduction in pain 100 mm VAS

100% reduction in pain 100 mm VAS

Nights of disturbed sleep

Absence from work

Use of rescue analgesia

Patient global assessment 6 point scale

Physician global assessment 6 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB1 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Score: 12

Spiroflor SRL, while officially classified as 'homeopathic' in some countries, would be better considered as a herbal remedy because the active ingredients are not diluted to homeopathic levels

500 mg paracetamol rescue medication (max 8 x 500 mg tablets daily)

Treatments were not identical in smell, colour, or consistency

Protocol compliance was poor (mainly due to under/over dosing)

Concentration of capsaicin is only 0.008%

von Bach 1979

Methods

RCT DB pseudo‐active control (assumed to be placebo in this review), parallel groups

Duration 14 days

Assessment at days 3, 6, 9, 14

Participants

Musculoskeletal (knee, spinal or shoulder) disease

N = 100

M = 48, F = 52

Average age 51 years

Interventions

Ethylene glycol monosalicylate ester (10%), nonivamide (0.2%) in ointment base of sodium heparin (50 IU/g), methylsalicylate (0.1%) and essential oils (Enelbin‐Rheuma), n = 50

Salicylic acid (2%) in above ointment base n = 50

8‐10 cm of ointment on affected site x 3 or x 4 daily

Outcomes

Restriction of movement 4 point scale

Swelling 4 point scale

Muscle tension 4 point scale

Spontaneous pain 4 point scale

Pain on pressure 4 point scale

Movement pain 4 point scale

Physician global assessment 4 point scale based on above scores

Curative efficacy 4 point scale

Withdrawals

Adverse events

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB2 W1

Oxford Pain Validity Score: 10

Wanet 1979

Methods

RCT DB parallel groups

Duration 15 days

Participants

Musculoskeletal disease (e.g. osteoarthritis) and traumatic injury (e.g. sprains)

Baseline pain none to intense

N = 56

M = 20, F = 36

Mean age 54 years

Interventions

Diethylamine salicylate (10%), myrtecaine (1%) cream (Algesal Suractive), n = 32

Placebo cream, n = 24

Application x 3 daily

Outcomes

Improvement in global assessment 4 point scale (global assessment based on 18 point scale of basic pain, paroxysmal pain, swelling, functional limitation)

Improvement in rest pain 4 point scale

Improvement in paroxysmal pain 4 point scale

Improvement in swelling 4 point scale

Improvement in functional limitation 4 point scale

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2 DB1 W0

Oxford Pain Validity Scale: 9

Myrtecaine (Nopoxamine) is a local anaesthetic agent

Patients on anti‐inflammatories or analgesics excluded

DB ‐ double blind; F ‐ female; M ‐ male; N ‐ total number in study; n ‐ number in treatment arm; R ‐ randomised; RCT ‐ randomised controlled trial; W ‐ withdrawals

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Crielaard 1986

Not RCT

Dettoni 1982

Cannot extrapolate data

He 2006

Not rubefacient, not blinded

Heindl 1977

Not RCT

Howell 1955

Not randomised

Jolley 1972

Oral condition

Kantor 1990

Too short duration

Kleinschmidt 1975

Quasi‐randomised

Pasila 1980

No usable data

Shamszad 1986

Study I is a republished version of Golden 1978 but no data could be extracted for either Study I or Study II

von Batky 1971

Not RCT

Weisinger 1970

Oral condition, not RCT

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Rubefacient versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain) Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

1.1 Acute conditions

4

324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.93 [1.51, 2.46]

1.2 Chronic conditions

6

455

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.58 [1.22, 2.04]

2 Adverse events Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

2.1 Any adverse event

11

984

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.56 [1.19, 2.04]

2.2 Local adverse events

10

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.15 [1.12, 4.12]

3 Withdrawals Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

3.1 Lack of efficacy

5

501

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.15, 0.87]

3.2 Adverse events

7

737

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.19 [1.52, 11.56]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Rubefacient versus active control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

1.1 Acute

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Chronic

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Adverse events Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

2.1 Any adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Local adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Withdrawals Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

3.1 Lack of efficacy

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.4 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.4 Adverse events.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.2 Withdrawals.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, outcome: 1.2 Withdrawals.

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 2 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Rubefacient versus placebo, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain).

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 2 Adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 2 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Rubefacient versus active control, Outcome 3 Withdrawals.

Table 1. Summary of outcomes ‐ efficacy and rescue medication

Analgesia

Study ID

Treatment

Outcome measure

Success

Rescue Medication

Acute

Diebschlag 1987

(1) Salicylate, adrenal extract, and mucopolysaccharide ointment (Mobilat)

(2) Placebo ointment

Movement pain on 100 mm VAS at:

(a) 8 days

(b) 15 days

No dichotomous data

(a) Significant difference in favour of (1)

(b) Significant difference in favour of (1)

No data

Frahm 1993

(1) Salicylate and mucopolysaccharide cream (Movelat)

(2) Placebo cream

Movement pain on 100 mm VAS at:

(a) 9 days

(b) 11 days

No dichotomous data

(a) Significant difference in favour of (1)

(b) No significant difference

No data

Ginsberg 1987

(1) Salicylate and capsicum oleoresin ointment (Rado‐Salil)

(2) Placebo ointment

Patient global assessment ('excellent' or 'good') at:

(a) 3 days

(b) 14 days

(a)

(1) 5/20

(2) 0/20

(b)

(1) 10/20

(2) 2/20

Total number of rescue tablets (250 mg paracetamol) used:

(1) 24

(2) 36

Ibanez 1988

(1) Salicylate spray

(2) Fepradinol spray active control

'Cure' at 12 days

(1) 23/35

(2) 85/102

No data

Lester 1981

(1) Salicylate, adrenal extract, and mucopolysaccharide gel (Movelat)

(2) Placebo gel

Relief of pain by 7 days

(1) 18/20

(2) 13/22

No data

Rothhaar 1982

(1) Salicylate gel (Reparil‐Gel)

(2) Placebo gel

Patient global assessment ('very good' or 'good') at 9 days

(1) 37/39

(2) 3/42

No data

Stam 2001

(1) Salicylate, nicotinate, capsicum oleoresin, and histamine gel (Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA)

(2) Herbal gel (Spiroflor SRL) active control

80% reduction in pain on 100 mm VAS at 7 days

(1) 41/78

(2) 40/83

Number using rescue medication (paracetamol):

(1) 65/82

(2) 56/75

Chronic

Algozzine 1982

(1) Salicylate cream (Myoflex)

(2) Placebo cream

Pain relief score at 7 days favours (1) or (2)

(1) 10/26

(2) 8/26

No data

Camus 1975

(1) Salicylate and myrtecaine cream (Algesal Suractive)

(2) Placebo cream

Improvement in rest pain score at 10 days

(1) 8/10

(2) 3/10

No data

Geller 1980

(1) Salicylate and heparin gel (Dolo‐Menthoneurin)

(2) Etofenamate gel active control

Patient global score ('very good' or 'good') after phase 1 at 7 days

(1) 24/25

(2) 8/25

No data

Golden 1978

(1) Salicylate cream (Aspercreme) + placebo tablets

(2) Aspirin tablets + placebo cream active control

Patient global assessment of pain relief ('excellent' or 'good') at 7 days

(1) 13/20

(2) 10/20

No data

Lobo 2004

(1) Salicylate cream (Theraflex‐TMJ)
(2) Placebo cream

Spontaneous pain VAS (10 cm) at:

(a) 15 days

(b) 10 days

No dichotomous data

(a) Significant difference in favour of (1)

(b) No significant difference

No data

Rutner 1995

(1) Salicylate gel (Phardol‐Mono)

(2) Placebo gel

Drop‐out 'pain free' by day 14

(1) 21/54

(2) 18/59

No data

Shackel 1997

(1) Salicylate gel

(2) Placebo gel

Patient global assessment ('very good' or 'good') at 28 days

(1) 22/58

(2) 21/56

Number using rescue medication (paracetamol):

(1) 43/56

(2) 39/55

Average dose (mg/day):

(1) 555

(2) 600

von Bach 1979

(1) Salicylate and nonivamide in heparin and salicylate ointment (Enelbin‐Rheuma)

(2) Salicylate in heparin and salicylate ointment active control

Global assessment ('very good' or 'good') at 14 days

(1) 27/50

(2) 10/50

No data

Wanet 1979

(1) Salicylate and myrtecaine cream (Algesal Suractive)

(2) Placebo cream

Rest pain score at 15 days

(1) 15/32

(2) 4/24

No data

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of outcomes ‐ efficacy and rescue medication
Table 2. Summary of outcomes ‐ withdrawals and adverse events

Withdrawals and exclusions

Adverse events

Study ID

Treatment

All withdrawals and exclusions

Lack of efficacy

Adverse events

All adverse events

Local adverse events

Algozzine 1982

(1) Salicylate cream (Myoflex)

(2) Placebo cream

1/26

unrelated to study

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

(1) 0/25

(1) 0/25

Camus 1975

(1) Salicylate and myrtecaine cream (Algesal Suractive)

(2) Placebo cream

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

Diebschlag 1987

(1) Salicylate, adrenal extract, and mucopolysaccharide ointment (Mobilat)

(2) Placebo ointment

No data

No data

(1) 0/40

(2) 0/40

(1) 0/40

(2) 0/40

(1) 0/40

(2) 0/40

Frahm 1993

(1) Salicylate and mucopolysaccharide cream (Movelat)

(2) Placebo cream

7/16

violation of protocol

(1) 0/78

(2) 0/78

(1) 0/78

(2) 0/78

(1) 0/78

(2) 1/78

(1) 0/78

(2) 1/78

Geller 1980

(1) Salicylate and heparin gel (Dolo‐Menthoneurin)

(2) Etofenamate gel active control

Phase 1:

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

Phase 1:

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

Phase 1:

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

Phase 2:

(1) 0/25

(2) 0/25

Phases 1 and 2 combined:

(1) 2/50

(2) 2/50

Phases 1 and 2 combined:

(1) 2/50

(2) 2/50

Ginsberg 1987

(1) Salicylate and capsicum oleoresin ointment (Rado‐Salil)

(2) Placebo ointment

No data

No data

No data

(1) 4/20

(2) 1/20

(1) 4/20

(2) 1/20

Golden 1978

(1) Salicylate cream (Aspercreme) + placebo tablets

(2) Aspirin tablets + placebo cream active control

(1) 1/20

(2) 8/20

(1) 1/20

(2) 2/20

(1) 0/20

(2) 6/20

(1) 3/20

(2) 12/20

(1) 0/20

(2) 0/20

Ibanez 1988

(1) Salicylate spray

(2) Fepradinol spray active control

No data

No data

(1) 0/35

(2) 0/102

(1) 0/35

(2) 0/102

(1) 0/35

(2) 0/102

Lester 1981

(1) Salicylate, adrenal extract, and mucopolysaccharide gel (Movelat)

(2) Placebo gel

8/50

4 excluded due to fractures, 4 lost to follow‐up

No data

No data

(1) 0/20

(2) 2/22

(1) 0/20

(2) 2/22

Lobo 2004

(1) Salicylate cream (Theraflex‐TMJ)
(2) Placebo cream

No data

No data

No data

(1) 2/26

(2) 2/26

(1) 2/26

(2) 2/26

Rothhaar 1982

(1) Salicylate gel (Reparil‐Gel)

(2) Placebo gel

(1) 13/50

11 with no data, rest lack of efficacy

(2) 24/50

8 with no data, rest lack of efficacy

(1) 2/39

(2) 16/42

(1) 0/39

(2) 0/42

(1) 0/39

(2) 0/42

(1) 0/39

(2) 0/42

Rutner 1995

(1) Salicylate gel (Phardol‐Mono)

(2) Placebo gel

7/136

lost to follow‐up

No data

No data

(1) 1/54

unrelated disc prolapse

(2) 0/59

(1) 0/54

(2) 0/59

Shackel 1997

(1) Salicylate gel

(2) Placebo gel

(1) 15/58

14 withdrew during trial, 1 lost to follow‐up

(2) 10/58

2 withdrew before treatment, 7 withdrew during trial, 1 lost to follow‐up

(1) 3/58
(2) 2/56

(1) 10/58
(2) 1/56

(1) 48/58
(2) 29/56

Total number of adverse events:

(1) 80

(2) 27

Stam 2001

(1) Salicylate, nicotinate, capsicum oleoresin, and histamine gel (Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA)

(2) Herbal gel (Spiroflor SRL) active control

(1) 4/78

lost to follow‐up

(2) 2/83

1 death, 1 lost to follow‐up

No data

(1) 8/74

(2) 1/82

unrelated death

(1) 19/74

(2) 10/82

(1) 18/74

(2) 3/81

von Bach 1979

(1) Salicylate and nonivamide in heparin and salicylate ointment (Enelbin‐Rheuma)

(2) Salicylate in heparin and salicylate ointment active control

(1) 0/50

(2) 2/50

(1) 1/50

(2) 0/50

(1) 0/50

(2) 2/50

(1) 0/50

(2) 2/50

(1) 0/50

(2) 2/50

Wanet 1979

(1) Salicylate and myrtecaine cream (Algesal Suractive)

(2) Placebo cream

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Summary of outcomes ‐ withdrawals and adverse events
Table 3. Sensitivity analyses ‐ acute efficacy

Subgroup

Studies

Participants

Fixed‐effect RR (95% CI)

NNT (95% CI)

All acute studies

4

324

1.9 (1.5 to 2.5)

3.2 (2.4 to 4.9)

Excluding Lester 19811

3

282

2.0 (1.5 to 2.7)

3.2 (2.4 to 5.0)

Excluding validity < 9

3

243

1.3 (1.01 to 1.7)

not calculated

Excluding quality < 3 or validity < 9

2

201

1.2 (0.90 to 1.7)

not calculated

Outcomes ≥ 7 days

3

202

1.8 (1.4 to 2.4)

3.1 (2.3 to 4.8)

Outcomes ≥ 7 days2

4

324

2.0 (1.5 to 2.5)

3.1 (2.3 to 4.4)

1. Quality score < 3, outcome measure unspecified 'improvement'

2. Including additional data at 14 days from Ginsberg 1987

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Sensitivity analyses ‐ acute efficacy
Table 4. Sensitivity analyses ‐ chronic efficacy

Subgroup

Studies

Participants

Fixed‐effect RR (95% CI)

NNT (95% CI)

All chronic studies

6

429*

1.6 (1.2 to 2.0)

6.2 (4.0 to 13)

Excluding von Bach 19791

5

329*

1.4 (1.03 to 1.8)

8.8 (4.7 to 70)

Excluding Shackel 19972

5

315*

1.9 (1.4 to 2.5)

4.6 (3.2 to 8.5)

Group size ≥ 40

3

327

1.5 (1.1 to 2.0)

7.4 (4.2 to 31)

Outcome measure global assessment or categorical score

4

290

1.8 (1.3 to 2.5)

4.8 (3.2 to 10)

Duration ≥ 14 days

4

383

1.6 (1.2 to 2.1)

6.3 (4.0 to 16)

* Including 26 patients in a crossover trial (Algozzine 1982)

1. Lower dose salicylate control

2. Application to a site remote from pain

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Sensitivity analyses ‐ chronic efficacy
Table 5. Sensitivity analyses ‐ adverse events and withdrawals

Event rate (%)

Subgroup

Rubefacient

Placebo

Studies (with ≥ 1 event)

Participants (in studies with ≥ 1 event)

Fixed effect RR (95% CI)

NNH (95% CI)

Any adverse event

All studies

74/484 (15%)

47/500 (9%)

8

773

1.6 (1.2 to 2.0)

13 (7.9 to 43)

All studies excluding Shackel 19971

26/426 (6%)

18/44 (4%)

7

659

1.5 (0.88 to 2.6)

not calculated

All studies excluding Stam 20012 and von Bach 19793

55/360 (15%)

35/368 (10%)

6

517

1.5 (1.1 to 2.0)

12 (6.8 to 67)

Acute studies only

23/271 (8%)

14/284 (5%)

4

394

1.7 (0.96 to 3.2)

not calculated

Acute excluding Stam 20012

4/197 (2%)

4/202 (2%)

3

238

1.03 (0.30 to 3.5)

not calculated

Chronic studies only

51/213 (24%)

33/216 (15%)

4

379

1.5 (1.1 to 2.0)

10 (5.5 to 68)

Chronic excluding Shackel 19971

3/155 (2%)

4/160 (3%)

3

265

0.82 (0.23 to 2.9)

not calculated

Chronic excluding von Bach 19793

51/163 (31%)

31/166 (19%)

3

279

1.6 (1.2 to 2.1)

6.7 (3.9 to 23)

Local adverse events

All studies

24/426 (6%)

11/443 (2%)

6

545

2.2 (1.1 to 4.1)

20 (11 to 140)

All studies excluding Stam 20012 and von Bach 19793

6/302 (2%)

6/312 (2%)

4

290

1.02 (0.37 to 2.8)

not calculated

Acute studies only

22/271 (8%)

7/283(2%)

4

393

3.1 (1.4 to 6.7)

13 (7.5 to 37)

Acute excluding Stam 20012

4/197 (2%)

4/202 (2%)

3

238

1.03 (0.30 to 3.5)

not calculated

Withdrawals due to adverse events

All studies

18/364 (5%)

4/373 (1%)

3

370

4.2 (1.5 to 12)

13 (7.9 to 35)

Chronic studies only

10/133 (8%)

3/131 (2%)

2

214

2.9 (0.88 to 9.7)

not calculated

1. High event rate

2. Herbal control

3. Lower dose salicylate control

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Sensitivity analyses ‐ adverse events and withdrawals
Table 6. Random‐effects model

Outcome

Fixed‐effect RR estimate (95% CI)

Random‐effects RR estimate (95% CI)

Acute efficacy

1.9 (1.5 to 2.5)

2.7 (1.05 to 7.0)

Chronic efficacy

1.6 (1.2 to 2.0)

1.6 (1.1 to 2.4)

Any adverse events

1.6 (1.2 to 2.0)

1.6 (1.3 to 2.1)

Local adverse events

2.2 (1.1 to 4.1)

1.3 (0.35 to 4.7)

All withdrawals

0.85 (0.57 to 1.3)

0.92 (0.41 to 2.1)

Withdrawal due to adverse events

4.2 (1.5 to 12)

3.4 (0.40 to 28)

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Random‐effects model
Comparison 1. Rubefacient versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain) Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Acute conditions

4

324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.93 [1.51, 2.46]

1.2 Chronic conditions

6

455

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.58 [1.22, 2.04]

2 Adverse events Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Any adverse event

11

984

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.56 [1.19, 2.04]

2.2 Local adverse events

10

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.15 [1.12, 4.12]

3 Withdrawals Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Lack of efficacy

5

501

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.15, 0.87]

3.2 Adverse events

7

737

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.19 [1.52, 11.56]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Rubefacient versus placebo
Comparison 2. Rubefacient versus active control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical success (e.g. 50% reduction in pain) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Acute

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Chronic

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Adverse events Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Any adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Local adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Withdrawals Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Lack of efficacy

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Adverse events

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Rubefacient versus active control