The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Additionally, we estimated the susceptibility to bias for individual drug classes.29,30”
From Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
Single dose dipyrone for acute postoperative pain
Rees, J., Meseguer, F., Faura, C. C., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (2001) · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003227 · Cited by 107
Self-citationRetractedSingle dose dipyrone for acute postoperative pain
Derry, S., Faura, C. C., Edwards, J. E., McQuay, H. J., & Moore, R. A. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003227.pub2 · Cited by 52
Self-citationRetractedCorrespondence - Tranexamic acid for traumatic brain injury
(2005) · London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736 · Cited by 11,894
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
Bonica, J. J., Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1999) · Cited by 2,537
Chandrasekharan, N. V., Dai, H., Roos, K. L. T., Evanson, N. K., Tomsik, J., Elton, T. S., & Simmons, D. L. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.162468699 · Cited by 1,989
Evidence-Based Surgical Care and the Evolution of Fast-Track Surgery
Kehlet, H., & Wilmore, D. W. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31817f2c1a · Cited by 1,880
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
The Coxibs, Selective Inhibitors of Cyclooxygenase-2
FitzGerald, G. A., & Patrono, C. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200108093450607 · Cited by 1,572
The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres?
Collins, S. L., Moore, A. R., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00005-5 · Cited by 1,543
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Moore, 2008, Managing potential publication bias, 15
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Finnerup, N. B., Attal, N., Haroutounian, S., McNicol, E., Baron, R., Dworkin, R. H., Gilron, I., Haanpää, M., Hansson, P., Jensen, T. S., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(14)70251-0 · Cited by 3,980
Postoperative pain—from mechanisms to treatment
Pogatzki-Zahn, E. M., Segelcke, D., & Schug, S. A. (2017) · PAIN Reports · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000588 · Cited by 446
Pain measures and cut-offs - 'no worse than mild pain' as a simple, universal outcome
Moore, R. A., Straube, S., & Aldington, D. (2013) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.12148 · Cited by 362
Self-citationCombination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults
Chaparro, L. E., Wiffen, P. J., Moore, R. A., & Gilron, I. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008943.pub2 · Cited by 323
Self-citationSingle dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews
Moore, R. A., Derry, S., Aldington, D., & Wiffen, P. J. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008659.pub3 · Cited by 258
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, R. A., Derry, S., McQuay, H. J., & Wiffen, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Churchill Hospital (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Cochrane (GB)
- 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)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › 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