Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25503883›Full record

SynthesisSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2015

[Opioids in chronic low back pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration].

F Petzke, P Welsch, P Klose, R Schaefert, C Sommer, W Häuser

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Non-Specific Low Back Pain.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. [Opioids for noncancer pain in the elderly].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2015
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Long-term opioid use in non-cancer pain.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

F PetzkeSchmerz-Tagesklinik und -Ambulanz, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
P Welsch
P Klose
R Schaefert
C Sommer
W Häuser
Kliniken Essen-Mitte · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe efficacy and safety of opioid therapy in chronic low back pain (CLBP) is under debate. We updated a recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of opioids in CLBP.

methodsWe screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CLBP. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.

resultsWe included 12 RCTs with 17 treatment arms and 4375 participants. Median study duration was 12 (4-16) weeks. Of the 17 treatment arms, seven (41.2 %) used oxycodone; four (23.6 %) tramadol; buprenorphine and oxymorphone were each used in two (11.8 %) and hydromorphone and tapentadol each in one (5.8 %). The results for studies with parallel/cross-over design were as follows (with 95 % confidence interval, CI): opioids were superior to placebo in reducing pain intensity (SMD - 0.29 [- 0.37, - 0.21], p < 0.0001; six studies with 2896 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in 50 % pain reduction (RD 0.05 [0.01, 0.10], p = 0.01; two studies with 1492 participants; number needed to benefit (NNTB) 19 [95 % CI 10-107]). Opioids were not superior to placebo in reports of much or very much improved pain (RD 0.16 [- 0.01, 0.34], p = 0.07; two studies with 1153 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in improving physical functioning (SMD - 0.22 [- 0.31, - 0.12], p < 0.0001; four studies with 1895 participants). Patients dropped out less frequently with opioids than with placebo due to lack of efficacy (RD - 0.10 [- 0.16, - 0.04], p = 0.001; five studies with 3168 participants; NNTB 10 [8-13]). Patients dropped out more frequently with opioids than with placebo due to adverse events (RD 0.12 [0.05, 0.19], p = 0.0007; six studies with 2910 participants; number needed to harm (NNTH) 7 [95 % CI 6-8]). There was no significant difference between opioids and placebo in terms of the frequency of serious adverse events or deaths.

conclusionOpioids were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Opioids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety during the study period. The conclusion on the safety of opioids compared to placebo is limited by the low number of serious adverse events and deaths. Short-term and intermediate-term opioid therapy may be considered in selected CLBP patients. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

Indexed as

Long-Term CareActivities of Daily LivingAnalgesics, OpioidCross-Over StudiesHumansLow Back PainPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID25503883
OpenAlexW190001790

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.