ArticlePain reports
Use of methadone as an alternative to morphine for chronic pain management: a noninferiority retrospective observational study.
Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Outcome Measures in Pharmacologically Managed Chronic Pain: Informing a New Outcome Framework for Healthcare Provider-Led Pharmacotherapy Services.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Pooled it
- Methadone and morphine have equivalent analgesic but not reward potency in female mice.Addiction neuroscience · 2025Article
- Methadone for Chronic Pain: A Review of Pharmacology, Efficacy, and Safety Concerns.Health psychology research · 2025Article
- Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Chemical similarity of molecules with physiological response.Molecular diversity · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic pain causes disability and is prevalent in the general population. Opioids are a part of a multimodal strategy for pain management. Methadone, a cheap and long-acting synthetic opioid, may represent an option for those who have limited access to the aforementioned class of analgesics. We aimed to provide a real-world evidence for the analgesic use of methadone, compared with morphine.
methodsWe conducted a noninferiority, retrospective observational single center study of patients with chronic pain, managed with either methadone or morphine at an outpatient specialized clinic. We extracted data from the electronic health records of patients who underwent an active treatment between August 2012 and January 2020 and were examined for at least 2 consecutive medical visits, after the administration of one of the aforementioned drugs. Data were analyzed using a generalized additive model with random-effects mixed linear method to account for the individual-related, time-related, and drug-related variations. The numeric verbal scale (0-10) was used to assess the pain severity.
resultsFrom the database of 3373 patients, we included 262 patients (175 methadone and 87 morphine). In an unadjusted analysis, methadone was superior to morphine, and the mean worst pain was 0.86 points lower (95% confidence interval, -1.29 to -0.43). Moreover, methadone was superior to morphine in the adjusted analysis, with the worst pain mean being 1.24 points lower. This provided evidence for the noninferiority of methadone than morphine.
conclusionMethadone was superior to morphine in a 20% noninferiority margin for reducing worst pain.
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.