Analgesic efficacy and safety of tramadol/ acetaminophen combination tablets (Ultracet) in treatment of chronic low back pain: a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of tramadol 37.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (tramadol/APAP) combination tablets for treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This 91 day, multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study enrolled 338 patients with chronic LBP requiring daily medication for > or = 3 months. Patients with at least moderate pain [pain visual analog scale (VAS) with scores > or = 40/100 mm] after washout were randomized to tramadol/APAP or placebo. After a 10 day titration, patients received 1 or 2 tablets QID. Primary outcome measure was final pain VAS score. Secondary measures included pain relief, quality of life and physical functioning, efficacy failure, and overall medication assessments. RESULTS: In total, 336 intent-to-treat patients received tramadol/APAP (n = 167) or placebo (n = 169). Mean baseline pain VAS score was 67.8. Intent-to-treat analysis showed significantly better mean final pain VAS scores (47.4 vs 62.9; p < 0.001) and mean final pain relief scores (1.8 vs 0.7; p < 0.001) for tramadol/APAP than for placebo. Roland Disability Questionnaire scores and physical-related subcategories of the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Health Survey were significantly better for tramadol/APAP patients. More patients rated tramadol/APAP as "very good" or "good" than placebo (63.6 vs 25.2%; p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative discontinuation rates due to efficacy failures were 22.9% (tramadol/APAP) vs 54.7% (placebo; p < 0.001). The most common treatment related adverse events with tramadol/APAP were nausea (12.0%), dizziness (10.8%), and constipation (10.2%). Average daily dose of tramadol/APAP was 4.2 tablets (tramadol 158 mg/APAP 1369 mg). CONCLUSION: Tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg combination tablets show efficacy in pain reduction, in measures of physical functioning and quality of life, and in overall medication assessments, with a tolerability profile comparable with other opioids used for the treatment of chronic LBP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".