4.6 Article

Topical treatment of chronic low back pain with a capsicum plaster

期刊

PAIN
卷 106, 期 1-2, 页码 59-64

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00278-1

关键词

low back pain; capsaicin; capsicum plaster; clinical study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy and tolerance of a capsicum plaster in non-specific low back pain was investigated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre parallel group study. A total of 320 patients were randomly assigned to two groups of n = 160 subjects treated by the active or the placebo plaster. The main outcome measures used were a compound pain subscore of the Arhus low back rating scale (continuous variable), and a response criterion of a reduction in pain subscore = 30% from baseline to final assessment (secondary, non-continuous variable). In addition, the partial pain scores, disability and mobility restriction subscores, the total score of the Arhus low back rating scale, the global evaluation of efficacy by investigator and patient, adverse events, a patient questionnaire on use of the plaster, and an evaluation of tolerance by investigator and patient were obtained. After 3 weeks treatment with capsicum and placebo plaster respectively, the compound pain subscore was reduced by 42% (capsicum) and 31% (placebo) from values on entry. Responder rate was 67% versus 49% (p = 0.002). The investigators rated efficacy as excellent or good by 74% and 36%: the patient's efficacy rating symptom free or improved reached 82% and 50%. Adverse local drug reactions were found in 12 patients (7.5%) on capsicum and 5 (3.1%) on placebo. No systemic side-effects were observed. The superiority of the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain with capsicum plaster compared to placebo was clinically relevant and highly statistically significant. The capsicum plaster offers a genuine alternative in the treatment of non-specific low back pain. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据