***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND Combination therapy has been widely used for the clinical management of acute pain .  By combining 2 drugs with different mechanisms of action , such therapy provides additive analgesic effects while reducing the risk for adverse effects . OBJECTIVE This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with those of oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg , hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg , and placebo in a dental pain model . METHODS This was a multicenter , r and omized , double-blind , placebo- and active-controlled , parallel-group , single-dose study in patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after surgical removal of > or = 2 ipsilateral impacted third molars . Patients were r and omly assigned to receive oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg , oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg , hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg , or placebo . The primary outcome measures were total pain relief through 6 hours after dosing ( TOTPAR6 ) , sum of pain intensity differences through 6 hours ( SPID6 ) , and adverse events . Secondary efficacy measures included SPID3 and TOTPAR3 , peak pain relief , peak pain intensity difference , time to onset of pain relief , time to use of rescue medication , proportion of patients reporting pain half gone , and the patient 's global evaluation . RESULTS Two hundred forty-nine patients ( 43.5 % male ; 87.5 % white ; mean age , 19.1 years ; mean body weight , 153.6 pounds ) were r and omized to treatment as follows : 62 to oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg , 61 to oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg , 63 to hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg , and 63 to placebo . Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly greater analgesia compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg , hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg , and placebo ( mean [ SD ] TOTPAR6 , 14.98 [ 5.37 ] , 9.53 [ 6.77 ] , 8.36 [ 6.68 ] , and 5.05 [ 6.49 ] , respectively ; P < 0.001 , oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg vs all other treatments ) . SPID6 values also differed significantly for oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with all other treatments ( mean : 7.78 [ 4.11 ] , 3.58 [ 4.64 ] , 3.32 [ 4.73 ] , and 0.69 [ 4.85 ] ; P < 0.001 ) . Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective compared with the other treatments on all secondary end points ( P < 0.001 , all variables except peak PID vs oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg [ P = 0.006 ] ) , with the exception of the time to onset of analgesia . The lowest frequency of nausea and vomiting occurred in the groups that received oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg ( 6.5 % and 3.2 % , respectively ) and placebo ( 3.2 % and 1.6 % ) . Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly lower with oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg ( P = 0.011 and P = 0.009 , respectively ) but not with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg . CONCLUSIONS In this study in patients with moderate to severe pain after surgery to remove impacted third molars , oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly better analgesia throughout the 6-hour study compared with the other opioid/nonopioid combinations tested , and was associated with fewer adverse events Abstract  Variability  in patients ' response to interventions in pain and other clinical setting s is large . Many explanations such as trial methods , environment or culture have been proposed , but this paper sets out to show that the main cause of the variability may be r and om chance , and that if trials are small their estimate of magnitude of effect may be incorrect , simply because of the r and om play of chance . This is highly relevant to the questions of ‘ How large do trials have to be for statistical accuracy ? ’ and ‘ How large do trials have to be for their results to be clinical ly valid ? ’ The true underlying control event rate ( CER ) and experimental event rate ( EER ) were determined from single‐dose acute pain analgesic trials in over 5000 patients . Trial group size required to obtain statistically significant and clinical ly relevant ( 0.95 probability of number‐needed‐to‐treat within ±0.5 of its true value ) results were computed using these values . Ten thous and trials using these CER and EER values were simulated using varying group sizes to investigate the variation due to r and om chance alone . Most common analgesics have EERs in the range 0.4–0.6 and CER of about 0.19 . With such efficacy , to have a 90 % chance of obtaining a statistically significant result in the correct direction requires group sizes in the range 30–60 . For clinical relevance nearly 500 patients are required in each group . Only with an extremely effective drug ( EER>0.8 ) will we be reasonably sure of obtaining a clinical ly relevant NNT with commonly used group sizes of around 40 patients per treatment arm . The simulated trials showed substantial variation in CER and EER , with the probability of obtaining the correct values improving as group size increased . We contend that much of the variability in control and experimental event rates is due to r and om chance alone . Single small trials are unlikely to be correct . If we want to be sure of getting correct ( clinical ly relevant ) results in clinical trials we must study more patients . Credible estimates of clinical efficacy are only likely to come from large trials or from pooling multiple trials of conventional ( small ) size & NA ; There is uncertainty over whether the patient group in which acute pain studies are conducted ( pain model ) has any influence on the estimate of analgesic efficacy . Data from four recently up date d systematic review s of aspirin 600/650 mg , paracetamol 600/650 mg , paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were used to investigate the influence of pain model . Area under the pain relief versus time curve equivalent to at least 50 % maximum pain relief over 6 h was used as the outcome measure . Event rates with treatment and placebo , and relative benefit ( RB ) and number needed to treat ( NNT ) were used as outputs from the meta‐analyses . The event rate with  placebo was systematic ally statistically lower for dental than postsurgical pain for all four treatments . Event rates with analgesics , RB and NNT were infrequently different between the pain models . Systematic difference in the estimate of analgesic efficacy between dental and postsurgical pain models remains unproven , and , on balance , no major difference is likely In a double-blind , single dose study of analgesic efficacy , 165 patients who were expected to develop moderate to severe pain following the removal of an impacted m and ibular third molar tooth were allocated to receive aspirin , placebo , or an increasing dose of a fixed ratio ibuprofen/codeine combination . The degree of pain experienced prior to medication was noted and the patients were asked to record the degree of pain and of pain relief hourly for the following 5 hours . The study produced clear evidence of the superior efficacy of the combinations when compared to placebo and aspirin . In addition , the high dose combination appeared to be superior with respect to pain relief and the need for additional analgesia compared to the low dose treatment . There were few side effects and only one severe reaction was reported by a patient in the high dose group . To avoid side effects it is suggested that the medium-dose combination , ibuprofen 400 mg/codeine 30 mg , is optimal In a double-blind , single dose study of analgesic efficacy , 202 patients who had undergone lower 3rd molar extraction were divided into 5 groups to receive aspirin , placebo , ibuprofen , codeine , or an ibuprofen/codeine combination . Ibuprofen 200 mg ( with or without codeine phosphate 15 mg ) and aspirin 600 mg were significantly superior to either placebo or codeine phosphate 15 mg alone . Codeine phosphate at a dose of 15 mg was ineffective as an analgesic either alone or in combination Background Previous analysis of a single data set in acute pain following third molar extraction demonstrated a strong relationship between the speed of reduction of pain intensity and overall pain relief , as well as need for additional analgesia . Methods Individual patient data analysis of a single r and omized , double-blind trial of placebo , paracetamol 1000 mg , ibuprofen sodium 400 mg and ibuprofen-poloxamer 400 mg following third molar extraction .  Visual analogue scale pain intensity ( VASPI ) and other measurements were made at baseline , every 5–45 min , and at 60 , 90 , 120 , 180 , 240 , 300 and 360 min . Results Most patients produced consistent VASPI results over time . For placebo and paracetamol , few patients achieved low VASPI scores and maintained them . For both ibuprofen formulations , VASPI scores fell rapidly during the first hour and were then typically maintained until later re-medication . Analysis of all patients showed that rapid VASPI reduction in the first hour was strongly correlated with good overall pain relief ( high total pain relief over 0–6 h ) , and with lesser need for additional analgesia within 6 h. Results for this analysis were in very good agreement with a previous analysis , validating the relationship between fast initial pain intensity reduction and overall good pain relief in this setting . Conclusions In acute pain following third molar extraction , faster acting analgesic formulations provide earlier onset of pain relief , better overall pain relief and a less frequent need for additional analgesia , indicating longer lasting pain relief Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics are commonly prescribed to out- patients who have undergone oral surgical procedures , since they are said to provide excellent pain relief for mild to moderate pain , allied with minimal side-effects . One hundred patients were entered into a r and omised clinical trial to compare the efficacy of a simple non-steroidal analgesic with that of a combination analgesic compound following the removal of lower third molars under local anaesthesia .  Pain scores were measured for patients post-operatively by means of a verbal rating scale for 3 days and data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test . Results suggest that this combination product offers no advantages ( but shows definite disadvantages ) when compared to an effective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory In a r and omised , double‐blind , double‐dummy , multiple dose , crossover study in 30 patients we compared an ibuprofen/codeine combination ( 400 mg ibuprofen/25.6 mg codeine phosphate ) with a paracetamol/codeine/caffeine combination ( 1 g paracetamol/ 16 mg codeine phosphate/60 mg caffeine ) for pain relief over 6 days after two‐stage bilateral lower third molar removal . The ibuprofen combination produced significantly greater analgesia than the paracetamol combination , both on single‐dose analysis of the first and second days and on multiple‐dose measures for days 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 . The mean incidence of adverse effects over the 6 days was 20 % for both combinations . This trial design ( crossover with multiple dosing in out patients ) is a sensitive way of testing for analgesia , and is potentially more predictive of adverse effect problems than single‐dose studies . It confirms that multiple dosing may show increased efficacy Abstract A previously established relationship for deriving dichotomous from continuous information in r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) of analgesics has been tested using an independent data set . Individual patient information from 18 RCTs of parallel‐group design in acute postoperative pain ( after abdominal , gynaecological and oral surgery ) was used to calculate the percentage of the maximum possible pain relief score  ( % maxTOTPAR ) and the proportion of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR for the different treatments . The relationship between the measures was investigated in 85 treatments with over 3400 patients . In 80 of 85 treatments ( 94 % ) agreement between calculated and actual number of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR was within four patients per treatment and in 72 ( 85 % ) was within three ( average of 40 patients per treatment , range 21–58 patients ) . Summing the positive and negative differences between actual and calculated numbers of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR gave an average difference of 0.30 patients per treatment arm . Reports of RCTs of analgesics frequently describe results of studies in the form of mean derived indices , rather than using discontinuous events , such as number or proportion of patients with 50 % pain relief . Because mean data inadequately describe information with a non‐normal distribution , combining mean data in systematic review s may compromise the results . Showing that dichotomous data can reliably be derived from mean 
    Output:
    
BACKGROUND There is good evidence that combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief in  acute pain  and headache than either drug alone , and that the drug-specific benefits are essentially additive .
These values were close to those predicted by published models for combination analgesics in acute pain , and were supported by low ( good ) NNT values for prevention of remedication .
For ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg particularly , the low NNT value is among the lowest ( best ) values for analgesics in this pain model .
In principle , this can deliver good analgesia at lower doses of ibuprofen