Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 16;2020(4):CD013581. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013581

Orava 1986.

Methods RCT; double‐blind, multicentre. Randomization procedure not described.
Follow‐up time: 1 week.
Participants Population: 133 participants, 41 women, 92 men. Age range 18 to 71
Setting: multicentre investigation at 8 cities by 8 physicians, conducted in Finland
Inclusion criteria: acute lumbago, onset less than 2 weeks ago, bothersome LBP and considerable functional disability, no previous use of analgesics, antiinflammatory, or muscle relaxing agents for this episode
Exclusion criteria: stable, chronic LBP; LBP due to disorders of the pelvic region or spinal disorders (prolapse/hernia of an intervertebral disc); pregnancy or nursing; hypersensitivity to salicylates or indomethacin; current treatment with systemic corticosteroids or anticoagulants; active peptic ulcer or gastrointestinal haemorrhage; significant liver of kidney disease; haemopoietic disorders
Interventions NSAID (i): diflunisal 500 mg (capsules) b.i.d.; 7 days (N = 66)
 NSAID (ii): indomethacin 50 mg (capsules) t.i.d.; 7 days (N = 67)
Outcomes Data shown in graphs, extracted from graphs.
Mean score difference in pain (4‐point Likert scale, range 0 to 3, no pain to severe pain) 0 to 7 days: (i) ‐1.0, (ii) ‐1.1 (at rest); (i) ‐1.6, (ii) ‐1.5 (on active movement). No significant differences
Mean score difference in functional disability (4‐point Likert scale, range 0 to 3, no disability to severe disability) 0 to 7 days: (i) ‐1.5, (ii) ‐1.55. No significant differences
Adverse events: (i) 12 participants = 18.2% (2 withdrew), (ii) 21 participants = 31.3% (6 withdrew)
Funding Not mentioned
Notes Partially flare participants: 126 participants with acute lumbago, 7 participants with acute exacerbation of chronic lumbago; no subgroup analysis
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomisation procedure not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not mentioned
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes ‐ participants Low risk The number and dosing of both medicines were made similar in both groups.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes ‐ careproviders Unclear risk Not mentioned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes ‐ outcome assessors Unclear risk Not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes ‐ dropouts Low risk Low dropout rate: 6% (8/133 withdrew)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis Unclear risk Not mentioned
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No study protocol
Similarity at baseline characteristics Low risk Baseline characteristics similar
Co‐interventions avoided or similar Unclear risk Not mentioned
Compliance acceptable Unclear risk Not mentioned
Timing outcome assessments similar Low risk Timing similar
Other bias Low risk None