↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Paracetamol for low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
473 tweeters
facebook
54 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 Mendeley
Title
Paracetamol for low back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno T Saragiotto, Gustavo C Machado, Manuela L Ferreira, Marina B Pinheiro, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Christopher G Maher

Abstract

Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP. To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP. We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov). We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes. Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important. Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP. We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 473 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 303 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 17%
Student > Master 53 17%
Other 29 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Researcher 19 6%
Other 68 22%
Unknown 59 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 6%
Psychology 13 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 38 12%
Unknown 71 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 458. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#32,059
of 17,608,563 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 11,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,018
of 272,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,608,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.