Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28683172›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Philip J Wiffen, Bee Wee, Sheena Derry, Rae F Bell, R Andrew Moore

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
25.7field-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.

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

168 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 263 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Hydromorphone for cancer pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Opioids for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Controlled Release of Oxycodone as an Opioid Titration for Cancer Pain Relief: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Treating cancer-related symptoms in patients exhibiting nonmedical opioid use behaviours: a retrospective chart review study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

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

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Philip J WiffenPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE.
Bee Wee
Sheena Derry
Rae F Bell
R Andrew Moore
Churchill Hospital · GBHaukeland University Hospital · NOThame Community Hospital · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundPain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.

objectivesTo provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

methodsWe identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN

resultsWe included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAcetaminophenAdministration, CutaneousAdministration, OralAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineCancer PainCodeineFentanylHumansHydromorphoneMethadoneOxycodonePhenolsTapentadolTramadolAcetaminophenAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineCodeineFentanylHydromorphoneMethadoneOxycodonePhenolsTapentadolTramadol

Identifiers

PMID28683172
PMCPMC6483487
OpenAlexW2592597011

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.