Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background: Rubefacients (containing salicylates or nicotinamides) cause irritation of the skin, and are believed to relieve various musculo-skeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. A non-Cochrane review in 2004 found limited evidence for efficacy. Objectives: To review current evidence for efficacy and safety of topically applied rubefacients in acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions in adults. Search strategy: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, and reference lists of articles were searched; last search December 2008. Selection criteria: Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacient for musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. Relative benefit or risk and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Acute and chronic conditions were analysed separately. Main results: Six placebo and one active controlled studies (560 and 137 participants) in acute pain, and seven placebo and two active controlled studies (489 and 90 participants) in chronic pain were included. All used topical salicylates. The evidence in acute conditions was not robust; using only better quality, valid studies, there was no difference between topical rubefacient and topical control, though overall, including lower quality studies, the NNT for clinical success compared with placebo was 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.9). In chronic conditions the NNT was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.0 to 13) compared with topical placebo. Adverse events and withdrawals occurred more often with rubefacients than placebo, but analyses were sensitive to inclusion of individual studies, so not robust. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls. Authors' conclusions: The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries, and suggests that in chronic conditions their efficacy compares poorly with topical non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Topical salicylates seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. There is no evidence at all for topical rubefacients with other components. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Original publication




Journal article


Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publication Date