Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233900›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aidan G Cashin, Thiago Folly, Matthew K Bagg, Michael A Wewege, Matthew D Jones, Michael C Ferraro, Hayley B Leake, Rodrigo R N Rizzo, Siobhan M Schabrun, Sylvia M Gustin and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Oral non-benzodiazepine muscle-relaxants for people with acute and chronic primary low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Aidan G CashinCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4190-7912
Thiago FollyCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Matthew K BaggCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael A WewegeCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Matthew D JonesCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael C FerraroCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hayley B LeakeIIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Rodrigo R N RizzoCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Siobhan M SchabrunCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sylvia M GustinCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard DayClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Christopher M WilliamsSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
James H McAuleyCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia j.mcauley@neura.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0550-828X
UNSW Sydney · AUNeuroscience Research Australia · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).

results49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.

conclusionsConsiderable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Indexed as

BenzodiazepinesHumansLow Back PainMuscle Relaxants, CentralParasympatholyticsBenzodiazepinesMuscle Relaxants, CentralParasympatholytics

Identifiers

PMID34233900
PMCPMC8262447
OpenAlexW3182646391

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.