ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2007
Neuraxial pain relief for intractable cancer pain.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caudal Neuraxial Blocks for Pain Relief From Pelvic Neuropathy Caused by Extensive Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Protocol Leads to Rapid Reduction of Systemic Opioids in the Oncological Population.Journal of palliative medicine · 2021Article
- Interventional Techniques to Management of Cancer-Related Pain: Clinical and Critical Aspects.Cancers · 2019Review
- Managing intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) in cancer patients.Current pain and headache reports · 2015Review
- Cancer Pain Management and Bone Metastases: An Update for the Clinician.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2012Article
- Intrathecal analgesia for refractory cancer pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2008Review
- Review of oral oxymorphone in the management of pain.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most patients with cancer pain achieve good analgesia using traditional analgesics and adjuvant medications; however, an important minority of patients (2% to 5%) suffers from severe and refractory cancer pain. For these individuals, spinal analgesics (intrathecal or epidural) provide significant hope for pain relief over months or years of treatment to help improve quality of life. Spinal analgesics have been suggested as the fourth step in the World Health Organization guidelines in the management of cancer pain, and thus the pain physician should be familiar with principles of use. Most patients achieve pain relief using spinal analgesics, with a minimum of complications that are easily managed at home. A variety of opioids, local anesthetics, clonidine, ketamine, and other analgesics are available for the spinal route of administration and should be titrated to clinical effect or intolerable side effect. This article discusses the appropriate selection of patients for spinal analgesics, reviews current recommended infusion systems and current spinal analgesics, discusses possible complications, and includes practical suggestions for patient management.
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.