Background: The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of Harpagophytum procumbens preparations in the treatment of various forms of musculoskeletal pain. Methods: Several databases and other sources were searched to identify randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled clinical trials testing Harpagophytum preparations in adults suffering from pain due to osteoarthritis or low back pain. Results: Given the clinical heterogeneity and insufficient data for statistical pooling, trials were described in a narrative way, taking into consideration methodological quality scores. Twelve trials were included with six investigating osteoarthritis (two were identical trials), four low back pain, and three mixed-pain conditions. Conclusions: There is limited evidence for an ethanolic Harpagophytum extract containing less than <30 mg harpagoside per day in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis. There is moderate evidence of effectiveness for (1) the use of a Harpagophytum powder at 60 mg harpagoside in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the spine, hip and knee; (2) the use of an aqueous Harpagophytum extract at a daily dose of 100 mg harpagoside in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic non-specific low back pain; and (3) the use of an aqueous extract of Harpagophytum procumbens at 60 mg harpagoside being non-inferior to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day for chronic non-specific low-back pain (NSLBP) in the short term. Strong evidence exists for the use of an aqueous Harpagophytum extract at a daily dose equivalent of 50 mg harpagoside in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic NSLBP.

Objective. This randomized, double‐dummy, double‐blind pilot study of acutely exacerbated low back pain was aimed to inform a definitive comparison between Doloteffin, a proprietary extract of Harpagophytum, and rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 (COX‐2). Methods. Forty‐four patients (phyto‐anti‐inflammatory drug—PAID—group) received a daily dose of Doloteffin containing, inter alia, 60 mg of harpagoside for 6 weeks and 44 (non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug—NSAID—group) received 12.5 mg/day of rofecoxib. All were allowed rescue medication of up to 400 mg/day of tramadol. Several outcome measures were examined at various intervals to obtain estimates of effect size and variability that might be used to decide the most suitable principal outcome measure and corresponding numbers required for a definitive study. Results. Forty‐three PAID and 36 NSAID patients completed the study. Ten PAID and 5 NSAID patients reported no pain without rescue medication for at least 5 days of the 6th week of treatment. Eighteen PAID and 12 NSAID patients had more than a 50% reduction in the week's average of their pain scores between the 1st and 6th weeks. The mean percentage decrease from baseline in the pain component of the Arhus Index was 23 (s.d. 52) in PAID and 26 (s.d. 43) in NSAID. The corresponding measures for the overall Arhus Index were 11 (31) and 16 (24) and, for the Health Assessment Questionnaire, 7 (8) and 6 (7). Tramadol was used by 21 PAID patients and 13 NSAID patients. Fourteen patients in each group experienced 39 adverse effects, of which 28 (13 in PAID) were judged to some degree attributable to the study medications. Conclusion. Though no significant intergroup differences were demonstrable, large numbers will be needed to show equivalence.

Paramedian insertion of orthodontic mini-implants is increasingly used to anchor molar distalizers. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the available measurements of vertical palatal bone height (VBH). PUBMED, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched using specific search terms. Hand searches of bibliographies of articles were also performed to identify studies measuring VBH or bone thickness in the human palate. Sixteen studies were included, arising from 19 published articles. Repeat presentations were excluded. Ten of the 11 computed tomogram (CT)-based studies presented data from 956 orthodontic patients on average VBH and its variation at a range of palatal sites. Individual data were not available, and pooling of data was not feasible because of heterogeneity of subjects, different measurement sites, different CT methods and their associated software. The compilation of data did indicate that the region 3–4mm behind the incisive foramen and 3–9mm lateral to the midpalatal suture should normally provide sufficient VBH to anchor molar distalizers. The risks of unwanted effects during distalization should be small, but the limitations listed above and the small numbers of studies available impair the precision of the estimates and do not allow the results to be generalized. Paramedian anchorage in the anterior palate can be recommended for molar distalization but, given the great inter-individual variability of the palatal bone height, it must be preceded by reliable CT-based imaging in patients identified by routine investigations as being at risk.