CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 198Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPain Management and Opioid UseNausea and vomiting management

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults

Open access
Moore, R Andrew, Derry, Sheena, McQuay, Henry J, Wiffen, Philip J·2011·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub2PMC PMC4160790
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data. OBJECTIVES: To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub2

Cites

92 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moore RA Barden J Derry S McQuay HJ McQuay HJ Kalso E Moore RA Managing potential publication bias Systematic reviews in pain research: methodology refined 2008 15 23 IASP Press Seattle ISBN: 978-0-931092-69-5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moore, R. A., Derry, S., McQuay, H. J., & Wiffen, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cochrane (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2011-09-07
Issue
9
Pages
CD008659-CD008659
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub2
PMC
PMC4160790
OpenAlex
W1673301128
Cited by
198
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 21
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2015-09-28)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
acute postoperative pain, analgesic efficacy, analgesic safety, adverse events, number needed to treat, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioid analgesics, dental pain, publication bias, placebo response, children, infants, neonates
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Adult, Analgesics, Humans, Pain, Postoperative, Postoperative Pain, Review Literature as Topic, Tooth Extraction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review