Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106230›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Methadone for cancer pain.

A B Nicholson

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Methadone for cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Treatment of pain in children after limb-sparing surgery: an institution's 26-year experience.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2011
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The role of opioids in cancer pain.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

A B NicholsonWest Midlands Deanery, Compton Hospice, Compton Road West, Wolverhampton, UK, WV3 9DH.
South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethadone is an opioid used in the management of cancer pain both in opioid naïve patients and in rotation from other opioids. A particular role in neuropathic pain has been suggested. The quest for evidence based palliative care prompted a formal appraisal of methadone in comparison with other analgesics.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of methadone analgesia in cancer pain patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1966 to August 2002), EMBASE (1980 to August 2002), CancerLit (1993 to August 2002), CINAHL (1982 to August 2002) and Cochrane databases were searched using a strategy developed with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group. Assiduous efforts were made to identify unpublished or current trial work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of methadone against active or placebo comparator in patients with cancer pain were included. Outcome measures sought were reduction in pain intensity measured by an appropriate scale, adverse effects, attrition, patient satisfaction and quality of life. There were no language restrictions. Absence of patient reported data was an exclusion criterion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligible studies were selected with independent collaboration from a colleague in Bristol (AND). Full text was retrieved if any uncertainty about eligibility remained. Non-English texts were screened by Cochrane contacts aware of the eligibility criteria. Quality assessment and data extraction were conducted using standardised data forms. Drug and placebo dose, titration, route and formulation were compared and detail of all outcome measures (if available) recorded. MAIN

resultsEight randomised controlled trials (five double blinded, two crossover) with 356 recruits and 326 completing patients were included. All involved active placebo (five morphine, one dextromoramide or pethidine, one diamorphine with cocaine mixture). All employed different starting doses, titration regimens and pain scoring scales. Few presented complete pain data sets and no meta-analysis has been possible. No differentiation by cancer pain syndrome was made. Complete adverse events data were recorded in every study, and were similar in incidence and severity to those experienced with morphine. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThere is evidence to suggest that methadone is an analgesic with similar efficacy to morphine and a comparable side effect profile. However, the majority of studies involved single dose comparisons or short term use. This methodology fails to reproduce clinical practice. Therefore there is a very significant danger that the effects of methadone accumulation leading to delayed onset of adverse effects which occurs with chronic administration has not been represented. Fixed interval dosing schedules conducted over several days are associated with a high risk of serious morbidity and mortality. There is no trial evidence to support the proposal that methadone has a particular role in neuropathic pain of malignant origin. Conclusions have been limited by the variations in trial design, dosing regimens and limited presentation of primary outcome data. The complex and highly individual pharmacokinetics of methadone require that experienced clinicians take responsibility for initiating, titrating and monitoring this drug.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidHumansMethadoneMorphineNeoplasmsPainPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidMethadoneMorphine

Identifiers

PMID15106230
OpenAlexW2140057322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.