Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16855921›Full record

Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2006

[Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain--a randomized controlled trial].

Martin Pinsger, Wolfgang Schimetta, Dieter Volc, Erich Hiermann, Franz Riederer, Werner Pölz

Abstract readEnglish AbstractRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cys-loop receptors on cannabinoids: All high?Frontiers in physiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martin PinsgerConfraternität, Privatklinik Josefstadt, Wien, Austria. m.pinsger@nextra.at
Wolfgang Schimetta
Dieter Volc
Erich Hiermann
Franz Riederer
Werner Pölz
Johannes Kepler University of Linz · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATMusic and Arts University of the City of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and efficiency of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain. Of major interest were the evaluation of the influence the treatment had on pain and on quality of life as well as the subjective assessment of positive effects and side effects by the study participants.

methodsThe placebo-controlled double-blinded pilot study was divided into a 14 week cross-over period (two 4 week medication phases plus wash-out phases) followed by a 16 week medication switch period with free choice of the study drugs (drug A and drug B) by the study participants. The principal inclusion criterion was chronic therapy-resistant pain in causal relationship with a pathologic status of the skeletal and locomotor system. The study participants chose the dosage of the study drug themselves (between 1 und 4 capsules/day, in the case of nabilone this corresponds to (1/4)-1 mg/day). Pain intensity was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS), quality of life by the Mezzich and Cohen QOL-score.

resultsAltogether, 30 patients were included and analyzed. From the results, it is obvious that throughout the cross-over periods the nabilone treatment was superior (medians [25%-; 75%-percentiles]: nabilone/placebo): decrease of the average spinal pain intensity within the last 4 weeks (DeltaVAS) 0.9 [0.0; 2.0] / 0.5 [0.0; 1.7], decrease of the current spinal pain intensity (DeltaVAS) 0.6 [0.0; 2.5] / 0.0 [-1.0, 1.0] (p = .006), decrease of the average headache intensity within the last 4 weeks (DeltaVAS) 1.0 [-1.0; 2.4] / 0.2 [-0.9; 1.0], increase of the number of days without headache within the last 4 weeks 2.0 [0.0; 6.5] / 0.0 [-5.0; 4.0], increase of the quality of life (DeltaQOL-Score) 5.0 [0.8; 10.8] / 2.0 [-2.3; 8.0]. In the medication switch period, the number of study participants who favoured nabilone (nabilone intake > or =85% of all medication days) was more than 4 times higher than those who favoured placebo. The number of days with nabilone intake was clearly higher than the number with placebo intake (medians: 89% vs. 11% of all medication days, p = .003).

conclusionIn summary, the study results allow the conclusion that a majority of patients with chronic pain classify nabilone intake in addition to the standard treatment as a measure with a positive individual benefit-riskratio. Thus, this kind of treatment may be an interesting and attractive enrichment of analgetic therapy concepts.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAnti-Anxiety AgentsCannabinoidsChemotherapy, AdjuvantChronic DiseaseCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDronabinolFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPain MeasurementPlacebo EffectTreatment OutcomeAnti-Anxiety AgentsCannabinoidsDronabinolnabilone

Identifiers

PMID16855921
OpenAlexW1494478174

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.