Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23986501›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Opioids for neuropathic pain.

Ewan D McNicol, Ayelet Midbari, Elon Eisenberg

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05864053 (), which is not on this map. Cited by 119 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
22.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05864053 phase1 / phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

(2R,6R)-Hydroxynorketamine a Novel Therapeutic Analgesic for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Double Blind Cross-Over Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRush University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2027Enrolled25ConditionsPain, NeuropathicArmsKetamine, (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine, Saline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 428 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 2017 HIVMA of IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Chronic Pain in Patients Living With HIV.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  13. Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  14. Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  15. Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  16. Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ewan D McNicolDepartments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacy, Tufts Medical Center, Box #420, 800 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 02111.
Ayelet Midbari
Elon Eisenberg
Rambam Health Care Campus · ILTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILTufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2006, which included 23 trials. The use of opioids for neuropathic pain remains controversial. Studies have been small, have yielded equivocal results, and have not established the long-term profile of benefits and risks for people with neuropathic pain.

objectivesTo reassess the efficacy and safety of opioid agonists for the treatment of neuropathic pain. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 24th October 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 24th October 2012 ), and EMBASE (1980 to 24th October 2012) for articles in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which opioid agonists were given to treat central or peripheral neuropathic pain of any etiology. Pain was assessed using validated instruments, and adverse events were reported. We excluded studies in which drugs other than opioid agonists were combined with opioids or opioids were administered epidurally or intrathecally. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse effects. MAIN

resultsThirty-one trials met our inclusion criteria, studying 10 different opioids: 23 studies from the original 2006 review and eight additional studies from this updated review.Seventeen studies (392 participants with neuropathic pain, average 22 participants per study) provided efficacy data for acute exposure to opioids over less than 24 hours. Sixteen reported pain outcomes, with contradictory results; 8/16 reported less pain with opioids than placebo, 2/16 reported that some but not all participants benefited, 5/16 reported no difference, and 1/16 reported equivocal results. Six studies with about 170 participants indicated that mean pain scores with opioid were about 15/100 points less than placebo.Fourteen studies (845 participants, average 60 participants per study) were of intermediate duration lasting 12 weeks or less; most studies lasted less than six weeks. Most studies used imputation methods for participant withdrawal known to be associated with considerable bias; none used a method known not to be associated with bias. The evidence, therefore, derives from studies predominantly with features likely to overestimate treatment effects, i.e. small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. All demonstrated opioid efficacy for spontaneous neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis demonstrated at least 33% pain relief in 57% of participants receiving an opioid versus 34% of those receiving placebo. The overall point estimate of risk difference was 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.37, P < 0.0001), translating to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4.0 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.7). When the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief was analyzed, the overall point estimate of risk difference between opioids (47%) and placebo (30%) was 0.17 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.33, P = 0.03), translating to an NNTB of 5.9 (3.0 to 50.0). In the updated review, opioids did not demonstrate improvement in many aspects of emotional or physical functioning, as measured by various validated questionnaires. Constipation was the most common adverse event (34% opioid versus 9% placebo: number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.0; 95% CI 3.0 to 5.6), followed by drowsiness (29% opioid versus 14% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 4.0 to 33.3), nausea (27% opioid versus 9% placebo: NNTH 6.3; 95% CI 4.0 to 12.5), dizziness (22% opioid versus 8% placebo: NNTH 7.1; 95% CI 5.6 to 10.0), and vomiting (12% opioid versus 4% placebo: NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 6.7 to 100.0). More participants withdrew from opioid treatment due to adverse events (13%) than from placebo (4%) (NNTH 12.5; 95% CI 8.3 to 25.0). Conversely, more participants receiving placebo withdrew due to lack of efficacy (12%) versus (2%) receiving opioids (NNTH -11.1; 95% CI -20.0 to -8.3). AUTHORS'

conclusionsSince the last version of this review, new studies were found providing additional information. Data were reanalyzed but the results did not alter any of our previously published conclusions. Short-term studies provide only equivocal evidence regarding the efficacy of opioids in reducing the intensity of neuropathic pain. Intermediate-term studies demonstrated significant efficacy of opioids over placebo, but these results are likely to be subject to significant bias because of small size, short duration, and potentially inadequate handling of dropouts. Analgesic efficacy of opioids in chronic neuropathic pain is subject to considerable uncertainty.  Reported adverse events of opioids were common but not life-threatening. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish unbiased estimates of long-term efficacy, safety (including addiction potential), and effects on quality of life.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidHumansNervous System DiseasesNeuralgiaPainPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID23986501
PMCPMC6353125
OpenAlexW1546041226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.