Suppr超能文献

用于治疗成人外侧肘部疼痛的非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)。

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for treating lateral elbow pain in adults.

作者信息

Pattanittum Porjai, Turner Tari, Green Sally, Buchbinder Rachelle

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics and Demography, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD003686. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003686.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm. Although self-limiting, it can be associated with significant disability and often results in work absence. It is often treated with topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a review first published in 2002 (search date October 11, 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of topical and oral NSAIDs for treating people with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SciSearch up to October 11, 2012. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) that compared topical or oral NSAIDs with placebo or another intervention, or compared two NSAIDs in adults with lateral elbow pain. Outcomes of interest were pain, function, quality of life, pain-free grip strength, overall treatment success, work loss and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and performed a risk of bias assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials, involving 759 participants and reporting 17 comparisons, were included in the review. Four new trials identified from the updated search were included, along with 11 of 14 trials included in the original review (three trials included in the previous review were found not to meet inclusion criteria). Of eight trials that studied topical NSAIDs (301 participants), five compared topical NSAIDs with placebo, one compared manipulative therapy and topical NSAIDs with manipulative therapy alone, one compared leech therapy with topical NSAIDs and one compared two different topical NSAIDs. Of seven trials that investigated oral NSAIDs (437 participants), two compared oral NSAIDs with placebo, one compared oral NSAIDs and bandaging with bandaging alone, three compared oral NSAIDs with glucocorticoid injection, one compared oral NSAIDs with a vasodilator and two compared two different oral NSAIDs. No trials directly compared topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs. Few trials used intention-to-treat analysis, and the sample size of most was small. The median follow-up was 2 weeks (range 1 week to 1 year).Low-quality evidence was obtained from three trials (153 participants) suggesting that topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo with respect to pain in the short term (mean difference -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.42 to -0.86) and number needed to treat to benefit (7 (95% CI 3 to 21) on a 0 to 10 scale). Low-quality evidence was obtained from one trial (85 participants) indicating that significantly more participants report fair, good or excellent effectiveness with topical NSAIDs versus placebo at 28 days (14 days of therapy) (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14). No participants withdrew as the result of adverse events, but some studies reported mild adverse effects such as rash in 2.5% of those exposed to topical NSAIDs compared with 1.3% of those exposed to placebo.Low-quality and conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of oral NSAIDs obtained from two trials could not be pooled. One trial found significantly greater improvement in pain compared with placebo, and the other trial found no between-group differences; neither trial found differences in function. One trial reported a withdrawal due to adverse effects for a participant in the NSAIDs group. Use of oral NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo in one trial in the review. Another trial reported discontinuation of treatment due to gastrointestinal side effects in four participants taking NSAIDs, and another participant developed an allergic reaction in response to oral NSAIDs.Very scant and conflicting evidence regarding the comparative effects of oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injection was obtained. One trial reported a significant improvement in pain with glucocorticoid injection, and another found no between-group differences; treatment success was similar between groups (RR of fair, good or excellent effectiveness 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.26). Transient pain may occur following injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There remains limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the benefits or harms of topical or oral NSAIDs in treating lateral elbow pain. Although data from five placebo-controlled trials suggest that topical NSAIDs may be beneficial in improving pain (for up to 4 weeks), non-normal distribution of data and other methodological issues precluded firm conclusions. Some people may expect a mild transient skin rash. Evidence about the benefits of oral NSAIDs has been conflicting, although oral NSAID use may result in gastrointestinal adverse effects in some people. No direct comparisons between oral and topical NSAIDs were available. Some trials demonstrated greater benefit from glucocorticoid injection than from NSAIDs in the short term, but this was not apparent in all studies and was not apparent by 6 months in the only study that included longer-term outcomes.

摘要

背景

外侧肘疼痛,即网球肘,是一种常见病症,会导致肘部和前臂疼痛。尽管该病具有自限性,但可能会导致严重残疾,且常常导致缺勤。通常使用外用和口服非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)进行治疗。这是对一篇于2002年首次发表的综述(检索日期为2012年10月11日)的更新。

目的

评估外用和口服NSAIDs治疗外侧肘疼痛患者的益处和危害。

检索方法

我们检索了截至2012年10月11日的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE和SciSearch。未设语言限制。

入选标准

纳入的研究需为随机或半随机对照试验(RCTs或CCTs),比较外用或口服NSAIDs与安慰剂或其他干预措施,或比较两种NSAIDs在患有外侧肘疼痛的成年人中的疗效。感兴趣的结局包括疼痛、功能、生活质量、无痛握力、总体治疗成功率、工作损失和不良反应。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立选择纳入研究、提取数据,并进行偏倚风险评估。

主要结果

本综述纳入了15项试验,涉及7名参与者,报告了17项比较。从更新检索中识别出的4项新试验被纳入,原综述中的14项试验中有11项也被纳入(发现之前综述中纳入的3项试验不符合纳入标准)。在8项研究外用NSAIDs的试验(301名参与者)中,5项比较了外用NSAIDs与安慰剂,1项比较了手法治疗加外用NSAIDs与单纯手法治疗,1项比较了水蛭疗法与外用NSAIDs,1项比较了两种不同的外用NSAIDs。在7项研究口服NSAIDs的试验(437名参与者)中,2项比较了口服NSAIDs与安慰剂,1项比较了口服NSAIDs加包扎与单纯包扎,3项比较了口服NSAIDs与糖皮质激素注射,1项比较了口服NSAIDs与血管扩张剂,2项比较了两种不同的口服NSAIDs。没有试验直接比较外用NSAIDs与口服NSAIDs。很少有试验采用意向性分析,且大多数试验的样本量较小。中位随访时间为2周(范围为1周至1年)。从3项试验(153名参与者)中获得的低质量证据表明,外用NSAIDs在短期内(平均差值 -1.64,95%置信区间(CI)-2.42至-0.86)和治疗获益所需人数(在0至10分的量表上为7(95%CI 3至21))方面比安慰剂显著更有效。从1项试验(85名参与者)中获得的低质量证据表明,在28天(治疗14天)时,与安慰剂相比,使用外用NSAIDs的参与者报告疗效为一般、良好或优秀的比例显著更高(风险比(RR)1.49,95%CI 1.04至2.14)。没有参与者因不良事件退出,但一些研究报告了轻度不良反应,如接触外用NSAIDs的人群中有2.5%出现皮疹,而接触安慰剂的人群中为1.3%。从两项试验中获得的关于口服NSAIDs益处的低质量且相互矛盾的证据无法合并。一项试验发现与安慰剂相比疼痛改善显著更大,而另一项试验未发现组间差异;两项试验均未发现功能方面的差异。一项试验报告NSAIDs组有一名参与者因不良事件退出。在本综述的一项试验中,与安慰剂相比,使用口服NSAIDs与胃肠道副作用风险增加相关。另一项试验报告4名服用NSAIDs的参与者因胃肠道副作用停止治疗,另一名参与者对口服NSAIDs产生过敏反应。关于口服NSAIDs与糖皮质激素注射的比较效果,获得的证据非常稀少且相互矛盾。一项试验报告糖皮质激素注射后疼痛有显著改善,另一项试验未发现组间差异;两组的治疗成功率相似(疗效为一般、良好或优秀的RR为0.74;95%CI 0.43至1.26)。注射后可能会出现短暂疼痛。

作者结论

关于外用或口服NSAIDs治疗外侧肘疼痛的益处或危害,目前仍缺乏足够证据得出确凿结论。尽管来自5项安慰剂对照试验的数据表明外用NSAIDs可能有助于改善疼痛(长达4周),但数据的非正态分布和其他方法学问题妨碍了得出确凿结论。有些人可能会出现轻度短暂皮疹。关于口服NSAIDs益处的证据一直相互矛盾,尽管使用口服NSAIDs可能会在一些人身上导致胃肠道不良反应。没有口服和外用NSAIDs之间的直接比较。一些试验表明,短期内糖皮质激素注射比NSAIDs更有益,但并非所有研究都如此,且在唯一一项纳入长期结局的研究中,6个月时也不明显。

相似文献

3
Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.用于成人慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛的外用非甾体抗炎药。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 22;4(4):CD007400. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007400.pub3.
4
Manual therapy and exercise for rotator cuff disease.肩袖疾病的手法治疗与运动疗法
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 10;2016(6):CD012224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012224.
5
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout.非甾体抗炎药治疗急性痛风。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 9;12(12):CD010120. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010120.pub3.
7
Colchicine for acute gout.秋水仙碱治疗急性痛风。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 26;8(8):CD006190. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006190.pub3.
10
Oral aspirin for treating venous leg ulcers.口服阿司匹林治疗下肢静脉溃疡。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 18;2(2):CD009432. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009432.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Recent Nonoperative Treatment of Elbow Pain.近期肘部疼痛的非手术治疗
Ewha Med J. 2023 Oct;46(4):e14. doi: 10.12771/emj.2023.e14. Epub 2023 Oct 31.
6
Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.手法治疗和运动治疗肘部外侧疼痛。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 May 28;5(5):CD013042. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013042.pub2.
10

本文引用的文献

5
Tennis elbow.网球肘
BMJ. 2009 Sep 2;339:b3180. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3180.
9
Validation of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Questionnaire.患者自评网球肘评估问卷的验证
J Hand Ther. 2007 Jan-Mar;20(1):3-10; quiz 11. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2006.10.003.

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