MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090079955 · doi:10.1177/009127002401102830

Efficacy and Tolerability of Nonprescription Ibuprofen versus Celecoxib for Dental Pain

2002· article· en· W2090079955 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbuprofenMedicineAnalgesicCelecoxibTolerabilityPlaceboAnesthesiaEtodolacCancer painAdverse effectInternal medicinePharmacologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many clinicians appear confused about the purported clinical advantages of the new generation COX-2 inhibitors compared to both over-the-counter and prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic agents (NSAIDs). Infact, there is a paucity of published information comparing the safety and efficacy of these two classes of drugs when used to treat acute pain. This study was designed to compare the safety and analgesic efficacy of an over-the-counter (OTC) analgesic, ibuprofen (Advil Liqui-Gels), to the leading prescription COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex). Ibuprofen liquigel is an encapsulated, solubilized potassium salt of ibuprofen that has a higher Cmax and shorter tmax than traditional ibuprofen solid-dosage formulations. This trial evaluated the maximum approved OTC dosing regimen (400 mg x 3, q4-6h) of ibuprofen liquigels compared to a single dose of celecoxib (200 mg) and placebo in 174 patients with moderate orsevere pain following surgical extraction of impacted third molars. The study design was multiple dose, randomized (stratified by baseline pain and gender), placebo controlled, double blind, double dummy, and parallel group. The onset of pain relief was determined using a two-stopwatch procedure. Treatments were also compared using standard indices of pain intensity and pain relief. The study demonstrated assay sensitivity in that both active medications were significantly more effective than placebo for all efficacy measures. In comparing the two active medications, the time to meaningful relief was significantly shorter, and the mean 4-, 8-, and 12-hour summed pain relief combined with pain intensity difference scores were significantly higher for ibuprofen liquigels compared with celecoxib (p < 0.001). Analyses of other key efficacy variables, including the time to rescue medication and the patients' overall assessment of study medication, confirmed the superior efficacy of ibuprofen liquigels over celecoxib. Both active treatments were well tolerated, with no differences in incidence or severity of adverse events. Of particular interest, there were no differences in gastrointestinal-related side effects when comparing these doses of ibuprofen liquigels to celecoxib. In conclusion, ibuprofen liquigels were a significantly more effective analgesic and provided relief significantly faster compared with celecoxib in the treatment of postsurgical pain.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it