Methocarbamol versus diazepam in acute low back pain in the emergency department: a randomised double-blind clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint in the emergency department and achieving effective analgesia can be challenging. Methods In this multicentre randomised double-blind clinical trial conducted at three EDs in Iran from August to November 2020, we assessed the efficacy and adverse effects of two muscle relaxants in patients aged 18 years or older who suffered LBP in the last 6 weeks. Group 1 received intravenous methocarbamol and group 2 received intravenous diazepam followed by a weight-based dose of intravenous morphine in both groups. Exclusion criteria mainly included non-spine aetiologies, cord compression, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, renal/hepatic insufficiency, pregnancy, breast feeding and unstable vital signs. Pain scores and adverse events were measured by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline and after 30 and 60 min by one of the researchers who was not involved with patient visits and was blinded to the intervention. We used t -test to assess the mean difference of NRS at 30 and 60 min. Results Out of 101 enrolled patients, 50 participants received methocarbamol and 51 diazepam. The baseline mean pain scores and demographic characteristics were not different between the study groups. Pain scores were reduced by both agents after 60 min, with slightly greater pain reductions in the diazepam group in comparison with methocarbamol (mean difference −6.1, 95% CI −6.5 to −5.7 vs mean difference −5.2, 95% CI –5.7 to −4.7, respectively, p<0.001). ED length of stay of patients did not differ between the groups (methocarbamol 5.9 vs diazepam 4.8 hours, p=0.365). Patients receiving diazepam were more likely to report drowsiness (2 (4.0%) vs 15 (29.4%), p=0.001). Conclusions In patients with LBP, the pain was relieved in the methocarbamol and diazepam groups after 60 min. Although diazepam was more effective, its use was associated with a slightly higher risk of drowsiness. Trial registration number The protocol of this clinical trial was prospectively registered in the irct.ir (IRCTID: IRCT20151113025025N4; https://irct.ir/trial/50148 ) .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".