Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25234029›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Codeine, alone and with paracetamol (acetaminophen), for cancer pain.

Carmen Straube, Sheena Derry, Kenneth C Jackson, Philip J Wiffen, Rae F Bell, Scott Strassels, Sebastian Straube

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Cancer Pain Management-New Therapies.Current oncology reports · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Carmen StraubeDepartment of Haematology and Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, Göttingen, Germany, 37075.
Sheena Derry
Kenneth C Jackson
Philip J Wiffen
Rae F Bell
Scott Strassels
Sebastian Straube
Churchill Hospital · GBHaukeland University Hospital · NOThe Ohio State University · USUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain is very common in patients with cancer. Opioid analgesics, including codeine, play a significant role in major guidelines on the management of cancer pain, particularly for mild to moderate pain. Codeine is widely available and inexpensive, which may make it a good choice, especially in low-resource settings. Its use is controversial, in part because codeine is not effective in a minority of patients who cannot convert it to its active metabolite (morphine), and also because of concerns about potential abuse, and safety in children.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of codeine used alone or in combination with paracetamol for relieving cancer pain. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 5 March 2014, supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries and screening of the reference lists of the identified studies and reviews in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials using single or multiple doses of codeine, with or without paracetamol, for the treatment of cancer pain. Trials could have either parallel or cross-over design, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Studies in children or adults reporting on any type, grade, and stage of cancer were eligible. We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity. MAIN

resultsWe included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAdultAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnalgesics, OpioidCodeineDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansNeoplasmsPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnalgesics, OpioidCodeine

Identifiers

PMID25234029
PMCPMC6513650
OpenAlexW1817199972

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.