Onset of Action and Efficacy of Ibuprofen Liquigel as Compared to Solid Tablets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ibuprofen liquigel has been believed to provide faster analgesic effect. However, comparative studies evaluating the efficacy of liquigel versus regular tablets are not available. Hence, we carried out a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare the onset of action and efficacy of over-the-counter doses of ibuprofen liquigel (IBULG) vs ibuprofen tablets (IBUT). Methods. Published clinical trials of IBULG and IBUT were identified through a systematic search of various data bases up to October, 2015. RESULTS: In total 18 eligible studies on IBUT and 4 on IBULG were found. There was no significant difference in the median time to the first perceptible pain relief or the proportion of patients with more than 50% pain relief between the two products. However, IBULG yielded significantly greater odd ratios in meaningful pain relief at 60, 90 and 120 min, but not at 30 min, as compared with IBUT. Conclusion. The available evidence, although not overwhelming, suggest a faster onset of analgesia for liquigel as compared with tablets. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".