Trial reportCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology1992
Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of rectal versus oral sustained-release morphine in cancer patients.
Trial report in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral morphine for cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Impact of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone or codeine on patient consciousness, appetite and thirst when used to treat cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- A novel extracellular flux assay workflow uncovers impaired sciatic nerve mitochondrial respiration in diabetic db/db mice.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026Article
- Sustained relief of chronic pain. Pharmacokinetics of sustained release morphine.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1998Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sustained-release morphine (MST) given by the rectal route was compared with oral MST in an open randomised cross-over trial in ten patients with cancer who received stable doses of MST. No significant difference was found in the areas under the curve of the concentration-time profiles (AUC) following oral or rectal administration for parent morphine. The AUCs determined for morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) and morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) after oral administration were approximately twice those obtained following rectal administration. The maximal concentration achieved was lower and the time to maximal concentration was longer following rectal administration for morphine, M6G and M3G. The relative mean arrival times following rectal administration were significantly longer for morphine and M3G but not for M6G. These findings suggest slower absorption but less first-pass metabolism of MST after rectal administration. No significant difference was noted between the oral and the rectal route in measurements on visual-analogue scales for pain or side effects. We recommend the rectal route as being suitable for MST administration when the oral route is no longer available. In changing from oral to rectal administration, the same dose and dose interval may be used, but dose adjustment may be needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.