MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235997314 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004257

Acetaminophen for osteoarthritis

2003· review· en· W4235997314 on OpenAlexaff
TE Towheed, Hochberg Mc, MG Judd, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcetaminophenPlaceboOsteoarthritisRofecoxibCelecoxibRandomized controlled trialIbuprofenMeta-analysisAdverse effectRelative riskInternal medicinePhysical therapyConfidence intervalAnesthesiaPharmacologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or Tylenol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-line pharmacologic therapy. The comparative safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs is important to consider as NSAIDs have the potential for serious gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular toxicities, and acetaminophen in high dosages (greater than or equal to 2 grams per day), may also have the potential for serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen versus placebo and versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen, arthrotec, celecoxib,naproxen, rofecoxib) for treating OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (up to July 2002), and Current Contents (up to March 2002). Reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles were also hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen alone in OA were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pain, physical function and global assessment outcomes were reported. Results for continuous outcome measures were expressed as standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk and the number needed to treat was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs and 1689 participants were included in the review. One study compared acetaminophen to placebo, and five compared acetaminophen to NSAIDs. In the placebo-controlled RCT, acetaminophen was shown to be clearly superior to placebo with a similar safety profile. The number needed to treat to achieve an improvement in pain was three. In the comparator-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was less effective overall than NSAIDs in terms of pain reduction and global assessments but both drugs had similar efficacy in terms of improvements in functional status. No significant difference was found between the safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs, although patients taking NSAIDS were more likely to withdraw due to GI events. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that NSAIDs are superior to acetaminophen for improving knee and hip pain in people with OA but have not been shown to be superior in improving function. The size of the treatment effect was modest, and the mean trial duration was only six weeks, therefore, additional considerations need to be factored in when making the decision between using acetaminophen or NSAIDs. In OA subjects with moderate-to-severe levels of pain, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than acetaminophen.

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 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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.011

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207