ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2014
Investigation and analysis of oncologists' knowledge of morphine usage in cancer pain treatment.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Status and Prescription Patterns of Opioid Utilization in a Large Comprehensive Teaching Hospital in China According to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification/Defined Daily Dose Methodology.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Cognition and Sociodemographic Determinants for Effective Pain Control in Patients with Cancer Pain: a Cross-sectional Survey in China.Current medical science · 2020Article
- A survey of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and practices of medical oncologists about cancer pain management in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018Article
- Study of analgesic effect of earthworm extract.Bioscience reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine oncologists' knowledge of cancer pain and morphine's clinical application in the People's Republic of China. In addition, this study analyzes and discusses the negative factors that currently affect the clinical application of morphine. PATIENTS AND
methodsA questionnaire survey was given to a random sample of 150 oncologists from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital. The statistical results were analyzed and processed using SPSS version 21.0 and Matlab version 2012a statistical software. Single-factor analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test, and independent samples t-test were adopted to analyze the difference in knowledge scores of morphine usage. The study also identified major impediment factors on clinical use of morphine.
resultsAmong the 127 respondents, morphine controlled-release tablets were the most popular drug chosen to treat severe cancer pain (76 respondents, 35.8%). Participants who reported having received training in cancer pain management and drug use demonstrated a significantly higher mean score of basic knowledge compared with their untrained peers (11.51±2.60 versus 9.28±3.68, t=2.48, P=0.022). The top four barriers to widespread clinical use of morphine for cancer pain were 1) insufficient analgesia administration training for medical personnel, 2) poor patient compliance, 3) drug side effects, and 4) concerns surrounding drug addiction.
conclusionThe oncologists in the People's Republic of China simultaneously lack comprehensive knowledge and harbor misconceptions with regard to cancer pain treatment and morphine's clinical application. Creating professional training initiatives for oncologists is necessary to enhance their awareness and expertise in morphine use for cancer pain treatment.
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.