MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409191556 · doi:10.1007/s00586-025-08786-0

Oral non-benzodiazepine muscle-relaxants for people with acute and chronic primary low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409191556 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Manca, Lucia Cugusi, Maurits W. van Tulder, Andrea D Furlan, Federico Solla, Marco Monticone

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Spine Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Sassari
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskPlaceboInternal medicineAdverse effectBenzodiazepineAnesthesiaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine benefits and adverse effects (AE) of oral muscle-relaxants (MR) (non-benzodiazepines) for acute (< 6 weeks) and chronic (> 12 weeks) primary LBP, administered alone or combined with analgesics/NSAIDs. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL were searched for pertinent randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes comprised lack of pain relief, global efficacy and AE at 5-7 days follow-up assessed dichotomously (risk ratio, RR). RESULTS: Fifty studies (7531 participants) were included, with data from 4775 pooled in meta-analyses. For acute LBP, non-benzodiazepine MR were associated with increased likelihood of pain relief (moderate certainty; RR: 0.53, p < 0.0001), global efficacy (RR: 0.49, p = 0.0001), muscle spasm (RR: 0.62, p < 0.00001), and physical outcomes (RR: 0.60, p < 0.00001) compared to placebo. AE were more frequent with non-benzodiazepine MR compared to placebo (low-to-moderate certainty; RR: 1.56; p = 0.003), and at central nervous system (CNS; RR: 2.40; p < 0.00001), but not at gastrointestinal (GI) level (RR: 0.77; p = 0.62). Combined non-benzodiazepines + analgesics/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide a larger and clinically meaningful benefit compared to placebo + analgesics/NSAIDs for global efficacy at 5-7 days (low-certainty; RR: 0.62; p = 0.01). Combined therapy did not result in significant between-group differences for total AE (moderate-certainty; RR: 1.15; p = 0.50) and GI AE (RR: 0.63; p = 0.08), despite responsible for more CNS AE (low-certainty; RR: 1.91; p = 0.002). When comparing non-benzodiazepine MR versus placebo for chronic LBP, only data on total AE could be pooled, without between-group difference (RR: 0.93; p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Non-benzodiazepine MR for acute LBP were associated with increased likelihood of pain relief and global efficacy compared to placebo. Combined therapy with analgesics/NSAIDs proved superior for global efficacy. Studies are needed to evaluate if non-benzodiazepine MR are of larger benefit than analgesics/NSAIDs, and if stand-alone administration provides more benefit than combined treatment. The observed AE warrant caution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.035
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Spine JournalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207