Straube, Sebastian

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD008183"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:47:23Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:47:23Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug, also used in the treatment of neuropathic pain, which is the subject of a Cochrane review, currently under revision. Its efficacy in treating established acute postoperative pain has not been demonstrated. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of single dose oral gabapentin compared with placebo in established acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics. Search strategy We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. Additional studies were sought from reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews. Clinical trials databases were searched for unpublished studies; clinical trial reports of several unpublished studies have been made public following litigation in the US. Selection criteria Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of gabapentin for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data extracted by two review authors independently. Numbers of participants with at least 50% of maximum possible total pain relief (TOTPAR) or summed pain intensity difference (SPID) with gabapentin or placebo were calculated and used to derive relative benefit (RB) or risk (RR), and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT). Numbers of participants using rescue medication, and time to its use, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected. Main results Four unpublished studies met inclusion criteria; in three, participants had pain following dental surgery, and one followed major orthopaedic surgery; 177 participants were treated with a single dose of gabapentin 250 mg, 21 with gabapentin 500 mg, and 172 with placebo. At least 50% pain relief over 6 hours was achieved by 15% with gabapentin 250 mg and 5% with placebo; giving a RB of 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.0) and an NNT of 11 (6.4 to 35). Significantly fewer participants needed rescue medication within 6 hours with gabapentin 250 mg than with placebo; NNT to prevent use 5.8. About one third of participants reported adverse events with both gabapentin 250 mg and placebo. No serious adverse events occurred with gabapentin. Authors' conclusions Gabapentin 250 mg is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of established acute postoperative pain, but the NNT of 11 for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours with gabapentin 250 mg is of limited clinical value and inferior to commonly used analgesics. Gabapentin 250 mg is not clinically useful as a stand-alone analgesic in established acute postoperative pain, though this is probably the first demonstration of analgesic effect of an antiepileptic in established acute pain."],["dc.description.sponsorship","NHS; NIHR; Oxford Pain Research Funds"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD008183.pub2"],["dc.identifier.isi","000277611100029"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20464764"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6214"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/20937"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","John Wiley & Sons Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Single dose oral gabapentin for established acute postoperative pain in adults"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD007771"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:47:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:47:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Vitamin D is produced in the skin after sun-light exposure and can also be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has recently been linked with a range of diseases including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic pain conditions. Objectives To assess the efficacy and adverse events of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions. Search strategy We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to September 2009. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, textbooks and reviews. Selection criteria Studies were included if they were randomised double blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic pain conditions in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Pooled analysis was not undertaken due to paucity and heterogeneity of data. Main results Four studies, with a total of 294 participants, were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, and the outcome measures reported. Only one study reported a beneficial effect, the others found no benefit of vitamin D over placebo in treating chronic pain. Authors' conclusions The evidence base for the use of vitamin D for chronic pain in adults is poor at present. This is due to low quality and insufficient randomised controlled trials in this area of research."],["dc.description.sponsorship","NHS Cochrane Collaboration UK; NIHR"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD007771.pub2"],["dc.identifier.isi","000274653900040"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20091647"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6213"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/20938"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","John Wiley & Sons Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","386"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","389"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","150"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Eccleston, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","Bell, Rae F."],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:40:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:40:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2010.05.011"],["dc.identifier.isi","000281675000008"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19142"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","\"Evidence\" in chronic pain - establishing best practice in the reporting of systematic reviews"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","150"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","11"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Paine, Jocelyn"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:41:25Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:41:25Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Population mean changes are difficult to use in clinical practice. Responder analysis may be better, but needs validating for level of response and treatment duration. A consensus group has defined what constitutes minimal, moderate, and substantial benefit based on pain intensity and Patient Global Impression of Change scores. Methods: We obtained individual patient data from four randomised double blind trials of pregabalin in fibromyalgia lasting eight to 14 weeks. We calculated response for all efficacy outcomes using any improvement (>= 0%), minimal improvement (>= 15%), moderate improvement (>= 30%), substantial improvement (>= 50%), and extensive improvement (>= 70%), with numbers needed to treat (NNT) for pregabalin 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily compared with placebo. Results: Information from 2,757 patients was available. Pain intensity and sleep interference showed reductions with increasing level of response, a significant difference between pregabalin and placebo, and a trend towards lower (better) NNTs at higher doses. Maximum response rates occurred at 4-6 weeks for higher levels of response, and were constant thereafter. NNTs (with 95% confidence intervals) for >= 50% improvement in pain intensity compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 22 (11 to 870) for pregabalin 300 mg, 16 (9.3 to 59) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 13 (8.1 to 31) for pregabalin 600 mg daily. NNTs for >= 50% improvement in sleep interference compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 13 (8.2 to 30) for pregabalin 300 mg, 8.4 (6.0 to 14) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 8.4 (6.1 to 14) for pregabalin 600 mg. Other outcomes had fewer respondents at higher response levels, but generally did not discriminate between pregabalin and placebo, or show any dose response. Shorter duration and use of 'any improvement' over-estimated treatment effect compared with longer duration and higher levels of response. Conclusions: Responder analysis is useful in fibromyalgia, particularly for pain and sleep outcomes. Some fibromyalgia patients treated with pregabalin experience a moderate or substantial pain response that is consistent over time. Short trials using 'any improvement' as an outcome overestimate treatment effects."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Pfizer Inc.; Oxford Pain Relief Trust; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1471-2474-11-150"],["dc.identifier.isi","000280833800005"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20602781"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5670"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19464"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1471-2474"],["dc.rights","CC BY 2.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0"],["dc.title","Pregabalin in fibromyalgia - responder analysis from individual patient data"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD007076"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:34:11Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:34:11Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is a recently developed antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Objectives To assess analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of pregabalin in acute and chronic pain. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to May 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers and on-line clinical trial databases. Selection criteria Randomised, double blind trials reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the patient as either the primary or a secondary outcome. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals. Main results There was no clear evidence of beneficial effects of pregabalin in established acute postoperative pain. No studies evaluated pregabalin in chronic nociceptive pain, like arthritis. Pregabalin at doses of 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily was effective in patients with postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (19 studies, 7003 participants). Pregabalin at 150 mg daily was generally ineffective. Efficacy was demonstrated for dichotomous outcomes equating to moderate or substantial pain relief, alongside lower rates for lack of efficacy discontinuations with increasing dose. The best (lowest) NNT for each condition for at least 50% pain relief over baseline (substantial benefit) for 600 mg pregabalin daily compared with placebo were 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.1) for postherpetic neuralgia, 5.0 (4.0 to 6.6) for painful diabetic neuropathy, 5.6 (3.5 to 14) for central neuropathic pain, and 11 (7.1 to 21) for fibromyalgia. With 600 mg pregabalin daily somnolence typically occurred in 15% to 25% and dizziness occurred in 27% to 46%. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 18 to 28%. The proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse event was not affected by dose, nor was the number with a serious adverse event, which was not more than with placebo. Higher rates of substantial benefit were found in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy than in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. For moderate and substantial benefit on any outcome NNTs for the former were generally six and below for 300 mg and 600 mg daily; for fibromyalgia NNTs were much higher, and generally seven and above. Authors' conclusions Pregabalin has proven efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions and fibromyalgia. A minority of patients will have substantial benefit with pregabalin, and more will have moderate benefit. Many will have no or trivial benefit, or will discontinue because of adverse events. Individualisation of treatment is needed to maximise pain relief and minimise adverse events. There is no evidence to support the use of pregabalin in acute pain scenarios."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub2"],["dc.identifier.isi","000268037500026"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19588419"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/17760"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","John Wiley & Sons Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.title","Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD002918"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","9"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Cole, Peter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:29:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:29:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Background This review is an update of a review first published in Issue 2, 2003, which was substantially updated in Issue 7, 2010. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are \"sympathetically maintained pains\" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain or by minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption. Objectives To review the evidence from randomised, double blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of chemical and surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain, including complex regional pain syndrome. Sympathectomy may be compared with placebo (sham) or other active treatment, provided both participants and outcome assessors are blind to treatment group allocation. Search methods On 2 July 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and of review articles and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data. We screened references in the retrieved articles and literature reviews and contacted experts in the field of neuropathic pain. Selection criteria Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled studies assessing the effects of sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. No pooled analysis of data was possible. Main results Only one study satisfied our inclusion criteria, comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy with lumbar sympathetic neurolysis using phenol in 20 participants with CRPS. There was no comparison of sympathectomy versus shamor placebo. No dichotomous pain outcomes were reported. Average baseline scores of 8-9/10 on several pain scales fell to about 4/10 initially (1 day) and remained at 3-5/10 over four months. There were no significant differences between groups, except for \"unpleasant sensation\", which was higher with radiofrequency ablation. One participant in the phenol group experienced post sympathectomy neuralgia, while two in the radiofrequency group and one in the phenol group complained of paraesthesia during needle positioning. All participants had soreness at the injection site. Authors' conclusions The practice of surgical and chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS is based on very little high quality evidence. Sympathectomy should be used cautiously in clinical practice, in carefully selected patients, and probably only after failure of other treatment options. In these circumstances, establishing a clinical register of sympathectomy may help to inform treatment options on an individual patient basis."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Oxford Pain Relief Trust, UK"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD002918.pub3"],["dc.identifier.isi","000325129500011"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23999944"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/31064"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Wiley-blackwell"],["dc.relation.issn","1361-6137"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.title","Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","982"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","989"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","152"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Paine, Jocelyn"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:56:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:56:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","We defined response in acute pain trials according to percentage of maximum possible efficacy. Minimum efficacy criteria (MEC) of 0%, or at least 15%, 30%, 50%, and 70% pain relief were used to examine stability over time using total pain relief and summed pain intensity difference (SPID), sex differences, and sensitivity. We used individual patient data from placebo-controlled third molar extraction trials: 4 with single-dose oral etoricoxib 120 mg, and 2 with paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations. With etoricoxib, numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were stable between response levels of at least 15% (MEC15) and 50% pain relief (MEC50), and similar for total pain relief and SPID. NNTs were higher (worse) at extremes of MEC, especially with SPID. Results for women and men were similar. NNTs of lower efficacy treatments (paracetamol 500 and 1000 mg) rose rapidly at higher MEC. NNTs of high efficacy treatments (ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations) showed greater separation at higher MEC. The highest degree of discrimination between treatments was with MEC50 and MEC70. Etoricoxib 120 mg (NNT for >= 50% maximum 6-hour pain relief 1.7) and ibuprofen 200/400 mg plus paracetamol 500/1000 mg (NNTs 1.5 and 1.6, respectively) produced the lowest (best) NNTs in the dental pain model. Timing of patient request for additional analgesia is an alternative analgesic efficacy outcome measure. (C) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.030"],["dc.identifier.isi","000289507500009"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21414722"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/23210"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Minimum efficacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta-analysis of acute pain trials: Examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","14"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","21"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","155"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Ireson-Paine, Jocelyn"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:47:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:47:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","A Cochrane review of ibuprofen in acute pain suggested that rapidly absorbed formulations of salts, or features to speed absorption, provided better analgesia than standard ibuprofen as the free acid. We examined several lines of evidence to investigate what benefit derived from fast-acting formulations. A systematic review of the kinetics of oral ibuprofen (30 studies, 1015 subjects) showed that median maximum plasma concentrations of fast-acting formulations occurred before 50 min (29-35 min for arginine, lysine, and sodium salts) compared with 90 min for standard formulations. An updated analysis of clinical trials (over 10,000 patients) showed that fast-acting formulations produced significantly better analgesia over 6 h and fewer remedications than standard formulations in both indirect and direct comparisons. In dental studies, 200-mg fast-acting ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.9-2.4) was as effective as 400 mg standard ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.4; 95% confidence interval 2.2-2.5), with faster onset of analgesia. Individual patient data analysis in dental pain demonstrated a strong correlation between more rapid reduction of pain intensity over 0-60 min and better pain relief over 0-6 h. Rapid initial reduction of pain intensity was also linked with reduced need for remedication. Fast-acting formulations of ibuprofen demonstrated more rapid absorption, faster initial pain reduction, good overall analgesia in more patients at the same dose, and probably longer-lasting analgesia, but with no higher rate of patients reporting adverse events. Achieving a better analgesic effect with fast-acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations has important implications for safety. Formulation chemistry is of potential importance for analgesics. (C) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved."],["dc.description.sponsorship","OMK"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.013"],["dc.identifier.isi","000329210000007"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23969325"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/35011"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","1872-6623"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Faster, higher, stronger? Evidence for formulation and efficacy for ibuprofen in acute pain"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","2449"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","2450"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","152"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:50:12Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:50:12Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2011.06.013"],["dc.identifier.isi","000296556200002"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21703765"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/21643"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Chronic widespread pain and interference with functioning"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.subtype","letter_note"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","41"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Gastroenterology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Tramer, Martin R."],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:28:47Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:28:47Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Some people who suffer an upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation die. The mortality rate was estimated at 12% in studies published before 1997, but a systematic survey of more recent data is needed. Better treatment is likely to have reduced mortality. An estimate of mortality is helpful in explaining to patients the risks of therapy, especially with NSAIDs. Methods: A systematic review of studies published before 1997, and between 1997 and 2008. Any study architecture was acceptable if it reported on cases who died from any cause of upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation. Analyses were conducted separately for all cases, and those prescribed NSAID or aspirin. Results: Information was available for 61,067 cases (81% published since 1997) of whom 5,001 died. The mortality rate in all cases fell significantly, from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.0 to 12.2) in pre-1997 studies to 7.4% (7.2 to 7.6) in those published since 1997. In 5,526 patients taking NSAID or aspirin, mortality increased, from 14.7% (13.6 to 15.8) before 1997 to 20.9% (18.8 to 22.9) since 1997. Conclusion: Upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation still carries a finite risk of death. Differences in study architecture, population characteristics, risk factors, definition of mortality, and reporting of outcomes impose limitations on interpreting effect size. Data published since 1997 suggest that mortality in patients suffering from an upper gastrointestinal bleed or perforation has fallen to 1 in 13 overall, but remains higher at about 1 in 5 in those exposed to NSAID or aspirin."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Oxford Pain Research Trust"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1471-230X-9-41"],["dc.identifier.isi","000267760400001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19500343"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5799"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/16502"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1471-230X"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Mortality with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation: effects of time and NSAID use"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]