meloxicam

• Analgesic consumption and rescue ketorolac use

  no effect

  analgesic consumption, and the number of patients requiring rescue analgesic procedure with sublingual ketorolac due to therapeutic failure was similar in the two treatment groups

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• Facial swelling

  no effect

  However; no statistical differences were observed

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• Maximal mouth aperture

  decreases

  In both treatment groups, aperture before surgery was 5 cm and after surgery; this decreased about 40% at 24 hours post operatively

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity (10 cm VAS) at fifth postoperative hour

  decreases, p = 0.04

  Meloxicam was only better than diclofenac at fifth hour postoperative according to VAS scores (P=0.04)

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• postoperative pain on a 10 cm VAS hourly for 12 h and at 24 h, analgesic consumption, facial swelling by facial distances, trismus by maximal aperture, after third-molar extraction

  decreases, p = 0.04

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Meloxicam was only better than diclofenac at fifth hour postoperative according to VAS scores (P=0.04),.

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• Trismus (maximal aperture), second significant time point

  increases, p = 0.04

  Evaluation of trismus (*P=0.03; and ** P=0.04)

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• Trismus (maximal aperture)

  increases, p = 0.03

  Evaluation of trismus (*P=0.03; and ** P=0.04)

  PMID:26615509 · one of two readings recorded this

• General demeanour and pain on abdominal palpation during hospitalisation

  decreases, p = 0.001

  General demeanour and pain on abdominal palpation during hospitalisation improved significantly in both groups ( P <0.001)

  PMID:26672127 · one of two readings recorded this

• occurrence of recurrent urethral obstruction in cats with obstructive idiopathic cystitis, 5-day oral meloxicam versus placebo

  no effect, 4/18 (22%) meloxicam vs 5/19 (26%) placebo, p = 1

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Recurrent urethral obstruction occurred in 4/18 cats (22%) in the meloxicam group and 5/19 cats (26%) in the placebo group ( P = 1.000).

  PMID:26672127 · one of two readings recorded this

• occurrence of recurrent urethral obstruction in cats with obstructive idiopathic cystitis; general demeanour, pain on abdominal palpation, food intake and voiding behaviour by physical examination and owner questionnaire

  no effect, 4/18 (22%) meloxicam vs 5/19 (26%) placebo, p = 1

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Recurrent urethral obstruction occurred in 4/18 cats (22%) in the meloxicam group and 5/19 cats (26%) in the placebo group ( P = 1.000).

  PMID:26672127 · one of two readings recorded this

• Recurrent urethral obstruction

  no effect, p = 1, n = 37

  Recurrent urethral obstruction occurred in 4/18 cats (22%) in the meloxicam group and 5/19 cats (26%) in the placebo group ( P = 1.000)

  PMID:26672127 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6722

  There were no significant differences in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 89.1 %; 3-year DFS, 53.9/ %; 5-year DFS, 44.0 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 86.5 %; 3-year DFS, 57.0 %; 5-year DFS, 43.4 %) (p = 0.6722)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6722

  There were no significant differences in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 89.1 %; 3-year DFS, 53.9/ %; 5-year DFS, 44.0 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 86.5 %; 3-year DFS, 57.0 %; 5-year DFS, 43.4 %) (p = 0.6722)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6722

  There were no significant differences in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 89.1 %; 3-year DFS, 53.9/ %; 5-year DFS, 44.0 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 86.5 %; 3-year DFS, 57.0 %; 5-year DFS, 43.4 %) (p = 0.6722)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.0726

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.0726

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.0726

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.8362

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.8362

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.8362

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  increases, p = 0.0211

  significant differences were observed in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 92.3 %; 3-year DFS, 75.8 %; 5-year DFS, 70.4 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 83.3 %; 3-year DFS, 48.1 %; 5-year DFS, not obtained) (p = 0.0211)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  increases, p = 0.0211

  significant differences were observed in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 92.3 %; 3-year DFS, 75.8 %; 5-year DFS, 70.4 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 83.3 %; 3-year DFS, 48.1 %; 5-year DFS, not obtained) (p = 0.0211)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Disease-free survival (DFS) rate

  increases, p = 0.0211

  significant differences were observed in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 92.3 %; 3-year DFS, 75.8 %; 5-year DFS, 70.4 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 83.3 %; 3-year DFS, 48.1 %; 5-year DFS, not obtained) (p = 0.0211)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• disease-free survival (time from surgery to next treatment for recurrent HCC), Kaplan-Meier with log-rank

  no effect, 5-year DFS 44.0% vs 43.4%, p = 0.6722

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for disease-free survival or HCC recurrence

  There were no significant differences in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 89.1 %; 3-year DFS, 53.9/ %; 5-year DFS, 44.0 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 86.5 %; 3-year DFS, 57.0 %; 5-year DFS, 43.4 %) (p = 0.6722).

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• disease-free survival (time from surgery to next treatment for recurrent HCC), Kaplan-Meier

  no effect, 5-year DFS 44.0 % vs 43.4 %, p = 0.6722

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for disease-free or recurrence-free survival

  There were no significant differences in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 89.1 %; 3-year DFS, 53.9/ %; 5-year DFS, 44.0 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 86.5 %; 3-year DFS, 57.0 %; 5-year DFS, 43.4 %) (p = 0.6722).

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.9549

  No significant differences in OS were noted between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 95.4 %; 3-year OS, 82.4 %; 5-year OS, 70.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.2 %; 3-year OS, 85.1 %; 5-year OS, 71.5 %) (p = 0.9549)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.9549

  No significant differences in OS were noted between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 95.4 %; 3-year OS, 82.4 %; 5-year OS, 70.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.2 %; 3-year OS, 85.1 %; 5-year OS, 71.5 %) (p = 0.9549)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.9549

  No significant differences in OS were noted between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 95.4 %; 3-year OS, 82.4 %; 5-year OS, 70.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.2 %; 3-year OS, 85.1 %; 5-year OS, 71.5 %) (p = 0.9549)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect

  For 24 patients with hepatitis B virus infection, there were no significant differences in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 90.0 %; 3-year OS, 90.0 %; 5-year OS, 59.1 %) and control group (1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 100 %; 5-year OS, 100 %) and in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 90.0 %; 3-year DFS, 50.0 %; 5-year DFS, 37.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 100 %; 3-year DFS, 92.9 %; 5-year DFS, 85.1 %) (p = 0.0726)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6724

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6724

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.6724

  For patients with hepatitis C virus infection, no significant differences were shown in OS between the meloxicam group (1-year OS, 94.4 %; 3-year OS, 78.6 %; 5-year OS, 66.8 %) and control group (1-year OS, 98.7 %; 3-year OS, 82.6 %; 5-year OS, 67.0 %) (p = 0.6724) or in DFS between the meloxicam group (1-year DFS, 88.9 %; 3-year DFS, 46.3 %; 5-year DFS, 35.5 %) and control group (1-year DFS, 85.7 %; 3-year DFS, 52.2 %; 5-year DFS, 38.8 %) (p = 0.8362)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.3274

  no significant differences were noted in OS between the meloxicam group (n = 26; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 88.5 %; 5-year OS, 84.4 %) and control group (n = 18; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 87.5 %; 5-year OS, 68.8 %) (p = 0.3274)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.3274

  no significant differences were noted in OS between the meloxicam group (n = 26; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 88.5 %; 5-year OS, 84.4 %) and control group (n = 18; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 87.5 %; 5-year OS, 68.8 %) (p = 0.3274)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall survival (OS) rate

  no effect, p = 0.3274

  no significant differences were noted in OS between the meloxicam group (n = 26; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 88.5 %; 5-year OS, 84.4 %) and control group (n = 18; 1-year OS, 100 %; 3-year OS, 87.5 %; 5-year OS, 68.8 %) (p = 0.3274)

  PMID:26846471 · one of two readings recorded this

• Baseline pain score (100-mm VAS)

  Mean (SD) baseline pain score | 78.0 (13.0) | 79.4 (12.7) | 79.4 (11.9) | 77.7 (13.2) | 80.4 (13.1)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  30 mg, HR 11.8; 95% CI 3.7‐38.3; 15 mg, HR 9.0; 95% CI 2.7‐29.8

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  30 mg, HR 11.8; 95% CI 3.7‐38.3; 15 mg, HR 9.0; 95% CI 2.7‐29.8

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  subjects who received meloxicam IV 60 mg were approximately 20 times more likely than placebo subjects to experience meaningful pain relief (HR 19.8; 95% CI 4.8‐81.9)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Meaningful pain relief, log-rank active treatment vs placebo

  increases, p = 0.0017

  Log‐rank analysis of active treatment vs placebo showed that the difference in meaningful pain relief between each active treatment and placebo was statistically significant (P ≤.0017)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score (LS mean, 0-4)

  increases

  highest for meloxicam IV 60 mg (3.1; 95% CI 2.8‐3.4), followed by meloxicam IV 30 mg (2.8; 95% CI 2.5‐3.2), meloxicam IV 15 mg (2.4; 95% CI 2.1‐2.8), ibuprofen (2.1; 95% CI 1.8‐2.5)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score (LS mean, 0-4)

  increases

  highest for meloxicam IV 60 mg (3.1; 95% CI 2.8‐3.4), followed by meloxicam IV 30 mg (2.8; 95% CI 2.5‐3.2), meloxicam IV 15 mg (2.4; 95% CI 2.1‐2.8), ibuprofen (2.1; 95% CI 1.8‐2.5)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score (LS mean, 0-4)

  increases

  highest for meloxicam IV 60 mg (3.1; 95% CI 2.8‐3.4), followed by meloxicam IV 30 mg (2.8; 95% CI 2.5‐3.2), meloxicam IV 15 mg (2.4; 95% CI 2.1‐2.8), ibuprofen (2.1; 95% CI 1.8‐2.5)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score (LS mean, 0-4)

  increases

  highest for meloxicam IV 60 mg (3.1; 95% CI 2.8‐3.4), followed by meloxicam IV 30 mg (2.8; 95% CI 2.5‐3.2), meloxicam IV 15 mg (2.4; 95% CI 2.1‐2.8), ibuprofen (2.1; 95% CI 1.8‐2.5)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score

  increases, p = 0.003

  the scores do demonstrate statistically significant differences between meloxicam IV 60 mg and ibuprofen (P <.001) and between meloxicam IV 30 mg and ibuprofen (P =.003), both favoring meloxicam IV

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score

  increases, p = 0.001

  the scores do demonstrate statistically significant differences between meloxicam IV 60 mg and ibuprofen (P <.001) and between meloxicam IV 30 mg and ibuprofen (P =.003), both favoring meloxicam IV

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient-reported global evaluation score

  increases, p = 0.007

  the difference was significant between meloxicam IV 60 mg and 15 mg (P =.007), favoring 60 mg

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs ibuprofen

  decreases, p = 0.001

  Rescue medication use was 75% lower with meloxicam IV 60 mg vs ibuprofen (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.13‐0.47; P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases, p = 0.001

  reduced 93% by meloxicam IV 60 mg (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03‐0.15; P <.001), 86% by meloxicam IV 30 mg (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.08‐0.24; P < 0.001), 87% by meloxicam IV 15 mg (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07‐0.23; P <.001), and 79% by ibuprofen (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.12‐0.36; P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases, p = 0.001

  reduced 93% by meloxicam IV 60 mg (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03‐0.15; P <.001), 86% by meloxicam IV 30 mg (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.08‐0.24; P < 0.001), 87% by meloxicam IV 15 mg (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07‐0.23; P <.001), and 79% by ibuprofen (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.12‐0.36; P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases, p = 0.001

  reduced 93% by meloxicam IV 60 mg (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03‐0.15; P <.001), 86% by meloxicam IV 30 mg (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.08‐0.24; P < 0.001), 87% by meloxicam IV 15 mg (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07‐0.23; P <.001), and 79% by ibuprofen (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.12‐0.36; P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases, p = 0.001

  reduced 93% by meloxicam IV 60 mg (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03‐0.15; P <.001), 86% by meloxicam IV 30 mg (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.08‐0.24; P < 0.001), 87% by meloxicam IV 15 mg (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07‐0.23; P <.001), and 79% by ibuprofen (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.12‐0.36; P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID over 0-2, 0-4 and 0-8 hours

  decreases, p = 0.005

  In comparison to ibuprofen, meloxicam IV doses of 30 mg and 60 mg produced statistically significant reductions in the time‐weighted summed pain intensity differences during the postdose hourly intervals 0‐2, 0‐4, and 0‐8 (P ≤.005)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  compared with the placebo group, in favor of active treatment (P <.001; Figure 1)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  compared with the placebo group, in favor of active treatment (P <.001; Figure 1)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  compared with the placebo group, in favor of active treatment (P <.001; Figure 1)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  compared with the placebo group, in favor of active treatment (P <.001; Figure 1)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.021

  favoring meloxicam IV 60 mg and 30 mg over ibuprofen (P <.001 and P =.021, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  favoring meloxicam IV 60 mg and 30 mg over ibuprofen (P <.001 and P =.021, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 (time-weighted summed pain intensity difference over 24 hours)

  decreases, p = 0.033

  favoring meloxicam IV 60 mg over 30 mg (P =.033) and 15 mg (P <.001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects experiencing meaningful pain relief

  Meaningful pain relief was experienced by 10% of the placebo group, 78% of the ibuprofen group, 92% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 86% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg group, and 74% of the meloxicam IV 15‐mg group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects experiencing meaningful pain relief

  Meaningful pain relief was experienced by 10% of the placebo group, 78% of the ibuprofen group, 92% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 86% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg group, and 74% of the meloxicam IV 15‐mg group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects experiencing meaningful pain relief

  Meaningful pain relief was experienced by 10% of the placebo group, 78% of the ibuprofen group, 92% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 86% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg group, and 74% of the meloxicam IV 15‐mg group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects experiencing meaningful pain relief

  Meaningful pain relief was experienced by 10% of the placebo group, 78% of the ibuprofen group, 92% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 86% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg group, and 74% of the meloxicam IV 15‐mg group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects experiencing meaningful pain relief

  Meaningful pain relief was experienced by 10% of the placebo group, 78% of the ibuprofen group, 92% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 86% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg group, and 74% of the meloxicam IV 15‐mg group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication (oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen) over 24 hours

  decreases

  28% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 58% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg and 15‐mg groups, and 72% of the ibuprofen group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication (oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen) over 24 hours

  decreases

  28% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 58% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg and 15‐mg groups, and 72% of the ibuprofen group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication (oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen) over 24 hours

  decreases

  28% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 58% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg and 15‐mg groups, and 72% of the ibuprofen group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication (oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen) over 24 hours

  decreases

  28% of the meloxicam IV 60‐mg group, 58% of the meloxicam IV 30‐mg and 15‐mg groups, and 72% of the ibuprofen group

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication (oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen) over 24 hours

  was taken by 93.3% of subjects in the placebo group during the 24‐hour postdose evaluation period

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Summed pain intensity difference by sex (efficacy parameters)

  no effect

  No significant differences in any efficacy parameter were found between male and female subjects

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to confirmed first perceptible relief, log-rank vs placebo

  decreases, p = 0.0001

  Log‐rank analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference between each meloxicam IV dose group and placebo (P <.0001)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time-weighted sum of total pain relief over 24 hours (TOTPAR24)

  increases, p = 0.001

  statistically significantly higher for each meloxicam IV group vs the placebo group (P <.001; Figure 3)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time-weighted sum of total pain relief over 24 hours (TOTPAR24)

  increases, p = 0.028

  Statistically significant differences also were noted for meloxicam IV 60 mg vs 15 mg (P <.01) and for each dose of meloxicam IV vs ibuprofen (P <.001, P <.001, and P =.028 for 60 mg, 30 mg, and 15 mg, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time-weighted sum of total pain relief over 24 hours (TOTPAR24)

  increases, p = 0.001

  Statistically significant differences also were noted for meloxicam IV 60 mg vs 15 mg (P <.01) and for each dose of meloxicam IV vs ibuprofen (P <.001, P <.001, and P =.028 for 60 mg, 30 mg, and 15 mg, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time-weighted sum of total pain relief over 24 hours (TOTPAR24)

  increases, p = 0.001

  Statistically significant differences also were noted for meloxicam IV 60 mg vs 15 mg (P <.01) and for each dose of meloxicam IV vs ibuprofen (P <.001, P <.001, and P =.028 for 60 mg, 30 mg, and 15 mg, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time-weighted sum of total pain relief over 24 hours (TOTPAR24)

  increases, p = 0.01

  Statistically significant differences also were noted for meloxicam IV 60 mg vs 15 mg (P <.01) and for each dose of meloxicam IV vs ibuprofen (P <.001, P <.001, and P =.028 for 60 mg, 30 mg, and 15 mg, respectively)

  PMID:29329493 · one of two readings recorded this

• Investigator satisfaction with wound healing (0 to 10 scale)

  no effect

  Mean assessment scores were at least 9.2 out of 10, both at discharge and at the 7‐day follow‐up visit

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Potentially clinically significant hematocrit <30%

  no effect

  Hematocrit | <30% | 24 (4.5) | 8 (4.4)

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Potentially clinically significant hemoglobin <10 g/dL

  no effect

  Hemoglobin | <10 g/dL | 41 (7.6) | 12 (6.6)

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Potentially clinically significant INR >1.5

  no effect

  INR | >1.5 | 5 (0.9) | 1 (0.5)

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• total opioid consumption as IV morphine equivalent dose over the treatment period, after major elective surgery

  no effect, 29.8 versus 39.0 mg IVMED, p = 0.0531

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Over the treatment period, the total IV morphine equivalent dose was 9.2 mg lower among meloxicam IV–treated subjects compared with those receiving placebo, although the difference was not statistically significant (29.8 versus 39.0; P =.0531).

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• total opioid consumption as IV morphine equivalent dose over the treatment period; safety endpoints (adverse event incidence, laboratory values, wound healing) summarised descriptively without inferential statistics

  no effect, 29.8 vs 39.0 mg IVMED over the treatment period, 9.2 mg lower, not statistically significant, p = 0.0531

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  Over the treatment period, the total IV morphine equivalent dose was 9.2 mg lower among meloxicam IV–treated subjects compared with those receiving placebo, although the difference was not statistically significant (29.8 versus 39.0; P =.0531).

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), during treatment

  no effect, p = 0.0531

  During treatment | 29.8 ± 58.02 | 39.0 ± 68.08 |.0531 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), during treatment

  decreases, p = 0.0081

  During treatment | 36.8 ± 42.69 | 50.3 ± 47.7 |.0081 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), during treatment

  no effect, p = 0.5734

  During treatment | 22.1 ± 70.53 | 26.5 ± 77.95 |.5734 |.0072

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 24-48 h

  no effect, p = 0.0846

  24‐48 h e | 8.7 ± 19.20 | 11.3 ± 21.82 |.0846 |.0015

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 24-48 h

  decreases, p = 0.0362

  24‐48 h e | 11.7 ± 18.67 | 15.7 ± 23.92 |.0362 |.0067

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 24-48 h

  no effect, p = 0.7216

  24‐48 h e | 5.3 ± 19.25 | 6.4 ± 18.21 |.7216 |.0600

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 48-72 h

  no effect, p = 0.2725

  48‐72 h f | 4.1 ± 16.59 | 6.2 ± 21.83 |.2725 |.1530

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 48-72 h

  no effect, p = 0.2178

  48‐72 h f | 5.3 ± 11.13 | 8.6 ± 22.80 |.2178 |.2768

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent), interval 48-72 h

  no effect, p = 0.3507

  48‐72 h f | 3.1 ± 20.09 | 4.3 ± 21.07 |.3507 |.2830

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.0025

  0‐24 h | 17.9 ± 22.86 | 23.3 ± 27.90 |.0025 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.006

  0‐48 h | 26.3 ± 37.73 | 34.3 ± 44.08 |.0060 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.0126

  0‐72 h | 28.4 ± 45.49 | 37.4 ± 55.31 |.0126 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.0032

  0‐24 h | 22.1 ± 22.75 | 31.1 ± 30.87 |.0032 |.0006

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.0032

  0‐48 h | 33.5 ± 37.05 | 46.3 ± 46.51 |.0032 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  decreases, p = 0.0037

  0‐72 h | 35.9 ± 40.86 | 50.0 ± 55.59 |.0037 | <.0001

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  no effect, p = 0.4704

  0‐24 h | 13.3 ± 22.14 | 14.6 ± 21.23 |.4704 |.0409

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  no effect, p = 0.5078

  0‐48 h | 18.4 ± 36.96 | 20.9 ± 37.13 |.5078 |.0081

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total opioid consumption (IV morphine equivalent)

  no effect, p = 0.5308

  0‐72 h | 20.2 ± 48.88 | 23.5 ± 51.84 |.5308 |.0069

  PMID:30786162 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first meaningful pain relief

  ranged from 17.7 to 26.2 minutes among meloxicam IV dose groups, compared with 16.3 minutes for morphine and 165 minutes for placebo

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first meaningful pain relief

  ranged from 17.7 to 26.2 minutes among meloxicam IV dose groups, compared with 16.3 minutes for morphine and 165 minutes for placebo

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first perceptible pain relief

  ranged from 6 to 8 minutes among meloxicam IV dose groups, compared with 4 minutes for morphine and 16.9 minutes for placebo

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first perceptible pain relief

  ranged from 6 to 8 minutes among meloxicam IV dose groups, compared with 4 minutes for morphine and 16.9 minutes for placebo

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Median time to first rescue medication use

  approximately 1.1 hours with placebo, 6.6 hours with morphine, and 21.8, 18.3, 10.1, and 12.2 hours with meloxicam IV 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  decreases

  Subjects in the morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg dose groups received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 1.3 (0.96), 0.5 (0.83), 0.6 (0.89), 0.7 (0.84), 0.9 (1.00), and 1.1 (1.09), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number of rescue doses

  Subjects in the placebo group received a mean (SD) number of rescue doses of 2.2 (1.16)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  decreases

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  Mean PID from baseline (SD) at 10 minutes for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were −4.7 (14.33), −28.9 (19.69), −21.2 (16.49), −17.5 (15.27), −16.8 (18.28), −16.3 (16.34), and −17.7 (19.47), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain intensity difference (PID) from baseline

  mean PID (SD) at 24 hours for placebo, morphine, and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 7.2 (20.39), −10.7 (28.28), −29.5 (30.13), −29.1 (24.22), −22.3 (25.34), −16.6 (28.87), and −13.4 (24.72)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient global evaluation score (GES) at hour 24

  increases, p = 0.001

  GES was significantly greater for all meloxicam IV dose groups compared with placebo (P <.001)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patient global evaluation score (GES) at hour 24

  increases, p = 0.009

  for meloxicam IV doses ≥7.5 compared with morphine (P ≤.009)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 meloxicam IV 60, 30 and 15 mg vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.002

  Meloxicam IV 60, 30, and 15 mg also produced significant reductions in pain intensity compared with morphine during the same period (P ≤.002)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24 standardised effect size vs placebo

  decreases

  The SPID24 effect sizes (95% CI) for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses were 1.12 (0.77–1.47), 1.93 (1.61–2.25), 2.00 (1.65–2.35), 1.70 (1.35–2.05), 1.28 (0.95–1.60), and 1.25 (0.90–1.61) SDs, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  decreases

  −29,615.8 (3869.24), −54,074.4 (3225.48), −56,276.8 (3926.46), −47,176.1 (3926.2), −34,241.3 (3189.34), and −33,517.1 (3930.09) mm × minutes

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• SPID24

  p = 0.001

  compared with 4555.9 (3807.05) mm × minutes for placebo (P <.001)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  15 mg, n = 22 (37%); 30 mg, n = 16 (27%); and 60 mg, n = 30 (34%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  15 mg, n = 22 (37%); 30 mg, n = 16 (27%); and 60 mg, n = 30 (34%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  placebo, n = 61 (95%); morphine, n = 47 (76%); and meloxicam IV 5 mg, n = 34 (57%); 7.5 mg, n = 48 (53%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  15 mg, n = 22 (37%); 30 mg, n = 16 (27%); and 60 mg, n = 30 (34%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  placebo, n = 61 (95%); morphine, n = 47 (76%); and meloxicam IV 5 mg, n = 34 (57%); 7.5 mg, n = 48 (53%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  placebo, n = 61 (95%); morphine, n = 47 (76%); and meloxicam IV 5 mg, n = 34 (57%); 7.5 mg, n = 48 (53%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Subjects using rescue medication

  placebo, n = 61 (95%); morphine, n = 47 (76%); and meloxicam IV 5 mg, n = 34 (57%); 7.5 mg, n = 48 (53%)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• summed pain intensity difference over 24 h (SPID24), time-weighted, on a 100-mm VAS, after single IV dose following open abdominal hysterectomy

  decreases

  Not recorded as a finding: this platform holds no node for the endpoint

  All meloxicam IV doses significantly reduced acute postoperative pain intensity during the first 24 hours relative to placebo (P <.001).

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 6.17 (3.79–10.03), 6.74 (4.00–11.36), 5.49 (3.27–9.21), 4.25 (2.64–6.86), and 4.37 (2.64–7.24), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 6.17 (3.79–10.03), 6.74 (4.00–11.36), 5.49 (3.27–9.21), 4.25 (2.64–6.86), and 4.37 (2.64–7.24), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 6.17 (3.79–10.03), 6.74 (4.00–11.36), 5.49 (3.27–9.21), 4.25 (2.64–6.86), and 4.37 (2.64–7.24), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 6.17 (3.79–10.03), 6.74 (4.00–11.36), 5.49 (3.27–9.21), 4.25 (2.64–6.86), and 4.37 (2.64–7.24), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 6.17 (3.79–10.03), 6.74 (4.00–11.36), 5.49 (3.27–9.21), 4.25 (2.64–6.86), and 4.37 (2.64–7.24), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first meaningful pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  The HR for morphine was 6.33 (95% CI, 3.83–10.46)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 3.54 (2.38–5.27), 3.09 (2.03–4.70), 2.80 (1.84–4.26), 2.30 (1.57–3.36), and 2.56 (1.70–3.86), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 3.54 (2.38–5.27), 3.09 (2.03–4.70), 2.80 (1.84–4.26), 2.30 (1.57–3.36), and 2.56 (1.70–3.86), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 3.54 (2.38–5.27), 3.09 (2.03–4.70), 2.80 (1.84–4.26), 2.30 (1.57–3.36), and 2.56 (1.70–3.86), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 3.54 (2.38–5.27), 3.09 (2.03–4.70), 2.80 (1.84–4.26), 2.30 (1.57–3.36), and 2.56 (1.70–3.86), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  HRs (95% CI) for meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg were 3.54 (2.38–5.27), 3.09 (2.03–4.70), 2.80 (1.84–4.26), 2.30 (1.57–3.36), and 2.56 (1.70–3.86), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first perceptible pain relief, hazard ratio vs placebo

  increases

  The HR for morphine was 4.77 (95% CI, 3.04–7.48)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.001

  Relative to morphine, meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses reduced the risk of rescue medication use in the first 24 hours by 72% (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18–0.45; P <.001), 73% (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.45; P <.001), 62% (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.61; P <.001), 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; P =.010), and 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.85; P =.007), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.001

  Relative to morphine, meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses reduced the risk of rescue medication use in the first 24 hours by 72% (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18–0.45; P <.001), 73% (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.45; P <.001), 62% (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.61; P <.001), 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; P =.010), and 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.85; P =.007), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.007

  Relative to morphine, meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses reduced the risk of rescue medication use in the first 24 hours by 72% (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18–0.45; P <.001), 73% (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.45; P <.001), 62% (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.61; P <.001), 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; P =.010), and 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.85; P =.007), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.001

  Relative to morphine, meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses reduced the risk of rescue medication use in the first 24 hours by 72% (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18–0.45; P <.001), 73% (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.45; P <.001), 62% (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.61; P <.001), 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; P =.010), and 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.85; P =.007), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.01

  Relative to morphine, meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg doses reduced the risk of rescue medication use in the first 24 hours by 72% (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18–0.45; P <.001), 73% (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.45; P <.001), 62% (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.61; P <.001), 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; P =.010), and 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.85; P =.007), respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases

  Those who received meloxicam IV 15, 7.5, or 5 mg were 86% (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09–0.23), 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14–0.30), and 81% (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12–0.29) less likely to require rescue medication in the first 24 hours

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases

  with an HR of 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06–0.16) for the meloxicam IV 60 mg group and an HR of 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06–0.17) for the meloxicam IV 30 mg group

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases

  Those who received meloxicam IV 15, 7.5, or 5 mg were 86% (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09–0.23), 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14–0.30), and 81% (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12–0.29) less likely to require rescue medication in the first 24 hours

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases

  with an HR of 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06–0.16) for the meloxicam IV 60 mg group and an HR of 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06–0.17) for the meloxicam IV 30 mg group

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Time to first rescue medication use, hazard ratio vs placebo

  decreases

  Those who received meloxicam IV 15, 7.5, or 5 mg were 86% (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09–0.23), 80% (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14–0.30), and 81% (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12–0.29) less likely to require rescue medication in the first 24 hours

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• total pain relief over 24 hours, TOTPAR24, 5-point categorical pain relief scale

  increases, TOTPAR24 higher for all doses than placebo

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for categorical pain relief score

  All meloxicam IV doses significantly improved pain relief during the first 24 hours relative to placebo (P <.001).

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• total rescue morphine consumption during the double-blind phase, mg

  decreases

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for rescue opioid consumption

  All active treatments reduced total consumption of rescue morphine in the double-blind treatment phase (P <.0001 versus placebo).

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid consumption vs morphine

  decreases, p = 0.0008

  The meloxicam IV 60, 30, and 15 mg doses also reduced total rescue opioid consumption relative to morphine (P =.0008, P =.0071, and P =.0206, respectively)

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  decreases

  total opioid rescue requirements for morphine and meloxicam IV 60, 30, 15, 7.5, and 5 mg recipients were 9.6 (8.12), 4.6 (8.17), 5.3 (8.85), 5.9 (7.85), 8.5 (9.67), and 9.3 (9.47) mg, respectively

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• Total rescue opioid requirement

  Total opioid rescue requirements in the placebo group were 16.0 (10.15) mg

  PMID:31094806 · one of two readings recorded this

• IKDC score at 3 months

  no effect, p = 0.05

  There was no difference of knee ROM, IKDC score, and Lysholm score between EPA group and POA group (all P >.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Knee range of motion at 3 months

  no effect, p = 0.05

  There was no difference of knee ROM, IKDC score, and Lysholm score between EPA group and POA group (all P >.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lysholm score at 3 months

  no effect, p = 0.05

  There was no difference of knee ROM, IKDC score, and Lysholm score between EPA group and POA group (all P >.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at flexion (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.01

  The percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at flexion was reduced at 4 hours (P <.05), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.01)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at flexion (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.05

  The percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at flexion was reduced at 4 hours (P <.05), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.01)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at flexion (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  The percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at flexion was reduced at 4 hours (P <.05), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.01)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at flexion (timepoints -24, -2, 24, 36, 48 hours)

  no effect, p = 0.05

  but similar at −24, −2, 24, 36, and 48 hours in EPA group compared to POA group (all P >.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at rest (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.05

  the percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at rest was reduced at 4 hours (P <.01), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at rest (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.01

  the percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at rest was reduced at 4 hours (P <.01), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

• Moderate-severe pain at rest (percentage of patients)

  decreases, p = 0.001

  the percentage of patients with moderate-severe pain at rest was reduced at 4 hours (P <.01), 8 hours (P <.001), and 12 hours (P <.05)

  PMID:31577705 · one of two readings recorded this

The whole record — 348 rows