Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1995-8-10
pubmed:abstractText
Musculoskeletal disorders such as soft tissue injuries have traditionally been treated with oral NSAIDs, despite the significant side-effects associated with their clinical use. However, four separate multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trials have shown that the efficacy of the topical NSAID, felbinac, is equivalent to that of the oral NSAID, ibuprofen, in the treatment of soft tissue injuries, and to that of oral ibuprofen or fenbufen in mild to moderate osteoarthritis. In general practice the incidence of side-effects with felbinac is low, while oral NSAIDs have been associated with significant problems, particularly in the gastrointestinal system. Consequently, the cost of treating side-effects is reduced with felbinac treatment compared with oral NSAIDs, making it a logical treatment alternative from an economic view point as well as for reasons of efficacy and safety.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0140-1610
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
14
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
21-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1994
pubmed:articleTitle
The topical NSAID felbinac versus oral NSAIDS: a critical review.
pubmed:affiliation
Clinical Pharmacology Unit (Rheumatism Research), Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Review