Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 21;24(7):969–970. doi: 10.1111/papr.13376

TABLE S2.

Responder analyses (full analysis set).

Treatment group, n (%) Odds ratio (95% CI)
CTC (n = 184) Tramadol (n = 183) Celecoxib (n = 181) Placebo (n = 89) CTC versus tramadol CTC versus celecoxib CTC versus placebo
Responders 50% a , b 115 (62.5) 107 (58.5) 107 (59.1) 49 (55.1) 1.204 (0.777, 1.864) 1.167 (0.752, 1.811) 1.377 (0.806, 2.353)
Responders 30% a , c 128 (69.6) 118 (64.5) 128 (70.7) 58 (62.5) 1.303 (0.820, 2.070) 0.937 (0.582, 1.507) 1.230 (0.696, 2.174)
Responders NRS <4 a , d 117 (63.6) 108 (59.0) 109 (60.2) 49 (55.1) 1.245 (0.800, 1.939) 1.160 (0.743, 1.811) 1.440 (0.838, 2.473)
Responders 50% and NRS <4 a 113 (61.4) 105 (57.4) 105 (58.0) 46 (51.7) 1.202 (0.778, 1.855) 1.164 (0.752, 1.800) 1.509 (0.887, 2.569)
Responders 30% and NRS <4 a 117 (63.6) 108 (59.0) 109 (60.2) 49 (55.1) 1.245 (0.800, 1.939) 1.160 (0.743, 1.811) 1.440 (0.838, 2.473)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CTC, celecoxib‐tramadol co‐crystal; NRS, numerical rating scale.

a

Logistic regression adjusted for center and baseline pain.

b

A 50% reduction in pain intensity from baseline sustained until the end of the 48‐h observation period.

c

A 30% reduction in pain intensity from baseline sustained until the end of the 48‐h observation period.

d

A pain intensity below 4 on the NRS sustained until the end of the 48‐h observation period.