ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Scoping Review of Off-Label Topical Analgesia in Palliative, Hospice and Cancer Care: Towards Flexibility in Evidence-Based Medicine.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Topical Traditional Chinese Medicines for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Integrative cancer therapiesPooled it
- Evaluation of the type and frequency of extemporaneous formulations dispensed in hospital and community pharmacies.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeScoping reviews address the nature of the literature per se rather than inferring evidence-based treatment guidelines. Scoping reviews of the published literature are intended to describe the aggregated nature of the evidence surrounding some agent or intervention, in contrast to systematic reviews that seek when possible to guide clinical practice. We conducted a scoping review to identify reports of potential clinical utility of off-label topical analgesics and adjuvants when FDA-approved treatments have proven inadequate.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive search of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) for articles dating from 1947 to the present. Mindful that FDA-approved and WHO-recommended analgesic medications often prove inadequate for individual patients in extremis with palliative, hospice or cancer pain, we used broad, structured inclusion criteria to retrieve articles.
resultsWe retrieved 12,100 articles; after screening, we had 39 reports addressing 19 different topical agents out of the 32 chemical entities. Our scoping review disclosed evidence about agents that might not have met inclusion criteria for clinical practice guidelines. DISCUSSION: Although generally considered lower quality evidence, case reports or series present suggestions for diverse topical medications to manage pain in challenging circumstances when high-quality evidence for agents and routes of administration is lacking.
conclusionPatients with the greatest need for evidence to identify and guide lesser-used agents during aggressive pain management are the most difficult to enroll and follow in standardized, controlled and/or blinded clinical trials. This scoping review identifies medications, dosages, and routes of topical agents reported to be effective in these often-challenging circumstances. Until larger and higher quality studies are completed, we must rely on the best available evidence even if of lower quality.
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.