Adverse Effects of Topical Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Older Adults with Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on reported adverse effects (AE) associated with use of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in older adults with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic search of Medline (1950 to November 2009), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Dissertation and American College of Rheumatology meeting abstracts was performed to identify original randomized controlled trials, case reports, observational studies, editorials, or dissertations reporting AE from topical NSAID in older adults with OA. Information was sought on study and participant characteristics, detailed recording of application site, and systemic AE as well as withdrawals due to AE. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 953 articles of which 19 met eligibility criteria. Subjects receiving topical NSAID reported up to 39.3% application site AE, and up to 17.5% systemic AE. Five cases of warfarin potentiation with topical agents were reported, 1 resulting in gastrointestinal bleeding. In formal trials, the withdrawal rate from AE ranged from 0 to 21% in the topical agents, 0 to 25% in the oral NSAID, and 0 to 16% in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Although topical NSAID are safer than oral NSAID (fewer severe gastrointestinal AE), a substantial proportion of older adults report systemic AE with topical agents. The withdrawal rate due to AE with topical agents is comparable to that of oral NSAID. Given the safety profile and withdrawal rates described in this study, further data are needed to determine the incremental benefits of topical NSAID compared to other treatment modalities in older adults with OA.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".