Meta-analysisTreatment: PharmacologicalSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

Rub-on anti-inflammatory gels and creams can ease chronic muscle and joint pain such as arthritis over about two weeks — working roughly as well as anti-inflammatory pills with only mild skin side effects.

Bottom line

Topical NSAIDs are effective and safe for chronic musculoskeletal pain over two weeks, performing as well as oral NSAIDs, but longer and larger trials are needed to confirm their long-term role.

Moderate evidence

Published

2004
22 years ago
Older study

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis ◀ this study
Systematic Review
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

About 1,500 patients in the efficacy analysis (up to ~2,000 for safety); 764 in topical-vs-oral comparisonGenerally over 40 yearsNot reported

Adults, generally over 40, with moderate-to-severe chronic musculoskeletal pain, predominantly osteoarthritis (mostly of the knee)

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 25 randomised, double-blind trials of topical NSAIDs (gels, creams, sprays) for chronic musculoskeletal pain, mostly osteoarthritis. Across 14 placebo-controlled trials (1,502 patients), topical NSAIDs were significantly better than placebo at achieving roughly 50% pain relief at two weeks, with a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 4.6 — meaning about one in every four to five treated patients benefited who would not have with placebo. Three trials (764 patients) comparing topical with oral NSAIDs found no difference in efficacy, and topical NSAIDs were as safe as placebo for local and systemic side effects over the two-week period. The authors note the trials were short and often small, so longer, larger studies are needed to confirm the role of topical NSAIDs in practice.

78/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Topical NSAIDs beat placebo for chronic musculoskeletal pain at two weeksHigh

Across 14 placebo-controlled trials (1,502 patients), relative benefit was 1.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.2) and NNT was 4.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 5.9) for at least ~50% pain relief at two weeks. Mean response was 48% with topical NSAID versus 26% with placebo.

No efficacy difference between topical and oral NSAIDsHigh

Three trials (764 patients) in knee or finger osteoarthritis found a 37% successful outcome with both topical and oral NSAID, with no statistically significant difference (relative risk 1.1; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.3).

Topical NSAIDs were as safe as placebo over two weeksHigh

In placebo-controlled trials there was no significant difference between topical NSAID and placebo for local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1%). Local effects were usually mild rash, itching or stinging.

Result was robust across sensitivity analysesMedium

Efficacy was not affected by trial quality, validity, size, the outcome reported, or condition treated (knee osteoarthritis versus other musculoskeletal). The 10 highest-quality/validity trials had a similar NNT of 4.4 (95% CI 3.6 to 5.6).

Efficacy estimate worsened compared with the earlier reviewMedium

After removing lower-quality and non-double-blind trials and reclassifying salicylate and benzydamine as non-NSAIDs, the NNT rose (worsened) from the prior 3.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.8) to about 4.6-4.7.

Local side effects slightly higher than oral NSAID, but not systemic harmMedium

In two active-controlled trials, local adverse events were more frequent with topical (8%) than oral NSAID (3%); systemic adverse events and withdrawals did not differ. No upper GI bleeding or symptomatic ulcers were documented in any study.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled trials, updating a previous review; fixed-effects pooling with NNT/NNH and pre-planned sensitivity analyses (z test), following QUOROM guidelines
Sample Size
25 trials total; 14 placebo-controlled trials (1,502 patients) pooled for efficacy, with up to 18 placebo-controlled trials (2,032 patients) for adverse events; 3 topical-vs-oral NSAID trials (764 patients) and 8 active-controlled trials (1,461 patients) for harm
Duration
Primary outcome assessed at approximately two weeks (at least seven days); trials were short-term
Population
Adults (generally over 40 years) with moderate to severe chronic musculoskeletal pain; predominantly osteoarthritis (mostly knee) of generally mild-to-moderate severity, plus general musculoskeletal conditions; patients with most severe disease were often excluded
Outcome Measures
Approximately 50% reduction in pain at two weeks (clinical success via global assessment or pain categories) · Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) and relative benefit · Local adverse events · Systemic adverse events · Adverse event-related withdrawals · Number-needed-to-harm (NNH) and relative risk

Strengths

  • Followed QUOROM guidelines with independent, multi-reviewer quality (Jadad) and validity scoring and dispute resolution by discussion
  • Comprehensive search across multiple databases and direct requests to 88 pharmaceutical companies worldwide for unpublished data
  • Stricter inclusion criteria than the prior review (double-blind only, minimum trial size) and reclassification of non-NSAID topicals improved rigour
  • Robust result confirmed across multiple pre-planned sensitivity analyses (quality, validity, size, outcome type, condition)
  • Reported both efficacy (NNT) and safety (local, systemic, withdrawals) outcomes

Limitations

  • Trials were short (outcomes mainly at two weeks), so long-term efficacy and safety of ongoing use could not be assessed
  • Many included trials were small, allowing chance to influence event rates
  • Trials spanned several decades and used different preparations, formulations, concentrations and application schedules, creating clinical heterogeneity
  • Reported outcomes were inconsistent, requiring a constructed hierarchy of outcomes
  • Insufficient data to compare efficacy between different individual topical NSAIDs
  • Possible publication bias could not be ruled out, though no additional unpublished trials were found

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01Rub-on (topical) anti-inflammatory gels, creams or sprays can meaningfully reduce chronic musculoskeletal pain such as osteoarthritis over a couple of weeks — about one in four to five people gets relief they would not have had from a placebo.
  2. 02In the trials, topical NSAIDs worked about as well as anti-inflammatory pills taken by mouth for osteoarthritis of the knee or fingers.
  3. 03Over the short two-week period studied, side effects from topical NSAIDs were no more common than with a dummy cream, usually just mild skin reactions like rash, itching or stinging.
  4. 04Because the trials were short and many were small, the long-term safety and benefit of using these products continuously is still uncertain — discuss ongoing use with your clinician.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkNarrative Review

Pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia: an update

Yang Li et al.·Frontiers in Pharmacology·2025

A 2025 narrative review concluding that current fibromyalgia drugs help only a minority of patients and should be used as part of an individualized, multimodal plan alongside exercise, education, and psychological support.

PharmacologicalRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liu et al.·International Journal of Surgery·2024

Network meta-analysis of 40 RCTs found manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy most effective for reducing pain and disability in myofascial pain syndrome. These three treatments showed benefits across pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and functional outcomes comp

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →