Suppr超能文献

萘普生凝胶与安慰剂治疗软组织损伤的双盲比较。

A double-blind comparison of naproxen gel and placebo in the treatment of soft tissue injuries.

作者信息

Thorling J, Linden B, Berg R, Sandahl A

机构信息

Halso-och Sjukvardsenheten, Falun, Sweden.

出版信息

Curr Med Res Opin. 1990;12(4):242-8. doi: 10.1185/03007999009111653.

Abstract

A double-blind study was carried out in 120 patients who had received soft tissue injuries within the preceding 48 hours to compare the effectiveness of naproxen gel (10%) with placebo gel (base alone). The injuries were predominantly synovitis and tendinitis. Standard clinical evaluations of the patients' condition were made by physicians and patients on entry and after 3 and 7 days of treatment. Both treatments resulted in a significant improvement in symptoms, but naproxen gel was significantly superior to placebo gel (p less than 0.05). The response produced by naproxen was more rapid; all symptoms were significantly improved by Day 3 (p less than 0.05). The greater efficacy of naproxen was reflected in a lower usage of active drug compared with placebo which was consistent throughout the study. While the physicians' global assessments of the two gels did not differ significantly, the patients showed a preference in favour of naproxen (p less than 0.05) Naproxen gel was well tolerated; only 1 adverse event of itching occurred. It is suggested that naproxen gel offers an effective and convenient alternative to systemic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients where side-effects are to be avoided or when oral administration is undesirable.

摘要

对120名在过去48小时内受到软组织损伤的患者进行了一项双盲研究,以比较萘普生凝胶(10%)与安慰剂凝胶(仅基质)的疗效。损伤主要为滑膜炎和肌腱炎。医生和患者在入组时以及治疗3天和7天后对患者病情进行了标准临床评估。两种治疗均使症状有显著改善,但萘普生凝胶明显优于安慰剂凝胶(p<0.05)。萘普生产生的反应更快;到第3天所有症状均有显著改善(p<0.05)。与安慰剂相比,萘普生疗效更佳体现在活性药物使用量更低,这在整个研究过程中是一致的。虽然医生对两种凝胶的总体评估没有显著差异,但患者表现出对萘普生的偏好(p<0.05)。萘普生凝胶耐受性良好;仅发生1例瘙痒不良事件。对于需要避免副作用或口服给药不可行的患者,建议萘普生凝胶为全身非甾体抗炎药提供了一种有效且方便的替代选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验