SynthesisOntario health technology assessment series2016
Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Noncancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.
Synthesis in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review of Pharmacologic Agents, Clinical Applications, and Considerations.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent chronic nonmalignant (noncancer) pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain owing to nonmalignant conditions.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and also searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity.
resultsWe found comparative evidence of effectiveness and harms in one cohort study at high risk of bias (≥ 3-year follow-up, N = 130). Four economic evaluations of low to very low quality were also included. Compared with oral opioid analgesia alone or a program of analgesia plus rehabilitation, intrathecal drug delivery systems significantly reduced pain (27% additional improvement) and morphine consumption. Despite these reductions, intrathecal drug delivery systems were not superior in patient-reported well-being or quality of life. There is no evidence of superiority of intrathecal drug delivery systems over oral opioids in global pain improvement and global treatment satisfaction. Comparative evidence of harms was not found. Cost-effectiveness evidence is of insufficient quality to assess the appropriateness of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems. Evidence comparing intrathecal drug delivery systems with standard care was of very low quality.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not establish (or rule out) superiority or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems for managing chronic refractory nonmalignant pain. The budget impact of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems would be between $1.5 and $5.0 million per year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27026797PMC4761861What 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.