Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are widely used in the treatment of tension headache. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of single doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs using meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trial studies.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, KMbase, KoreaMed, RiCH, National Assembly Library, Riss4u, and DBPIA for studies released through 27th July 2010. Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool was used. Review Manager 5.0 was used for statistics.
We identified 6 studies. The relative benefit of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group for participants with at least 50% pain relief was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.39; I2 = 85%). We did subgroup analysis based on allocation concealment versus non-allocation concealment, and low-dose NSAIDs versus high-dose NSAIDs. The relative benefit of the low-dose NSAIDs subgroup to the acetaminophen group was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.06; I2 = 0%). However, the heterogeneity of other subgroup analysis was not settled. The relative risk for using rescue medication of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.12; I2 = 47%). The relative risk for adverse events was 1.31(95% CI, 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%).
In this meta-analysis, there was no difference between low-dose NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the efficacy of the treatment for tension type headache. The results suggested that high-dose NSAIDs have more effect but also have more adverse events. The balance of benefit and harm needs to be considered when using high-dose NSAIDs for tension headache.
Citations
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was developed to improve the reporting of observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in cohort studies and case-control studies among observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine.
We searched for cohort studies and case-control studies published as original articles in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine during the period January 1992 through December 2009. The main outcome measures were the number and proportion of cohort studies and case-control studies that reported each of 22 checklist items of STROBE.
We identified a total of 84 articles, of which 46 articles were cohort studies and 38 were case-control studies. Concerning methods, study designs (10%), bias (13%), study size (0%), statistical methods (12-c and 12-e items, 0%; 12-d item, cohort study, 6%) have been poorly reported. Of results, participants (5-6%), descriptive data (14-b item, 5%), and funding (1%) among other information have been poorly reported.
The degree of adherence the STROBE recommendations was relatively low in cohort studies and case-control studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. An effort to improve the reporting of observational studies by application and recommendation of the STROBE statement is required.
Citations
First
Prev
