Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295493›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2021

Opioids and Chronic Pain: An Analytic Review of the Clinical Evidence.

Stephen E Nadeau, Jeffrey K Wu, Richard A Lawhern

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.1field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. From controversy to clinical evidence: the evolving role of cannabis in pain therapy.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Adenosine AFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Opioid consumption after lower limb amputation in Medicare beneficiaries.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen E NadeauResearch Service and the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center and the Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Jeffrey K WuCornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Richard A LawhernIndependent Researcher and Patient Advocate, Fort Mill, SC, United States.
Cornell University · USMalcom Randall VA Medical Center · USPatient Advocate Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted an analytic review of the clinical scientific literature bearing on the use of opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States. There is substantial, albeit not definitive, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of opioids in treating pain and of high variability in opioid dose requirements and side effects. The estimated risk of death from opioid treatment involving doses above 100 MMED is ~0.25%/year. Multiple large studies refute the concept that short-term use of opioids to treat acute pain predisposes to development of opioid use disorder. The prevalence of opioid use disorder associated with prescription opioids is likely <3%. Morbidity, mortality, and financial costs of inadequate treatment of the 18 million Americans with moderate to severe chronic pain are high. Because of the absence of comparative effectiveness studies, there are no scientific grounds for considering alternative non-pharmacologic treatments as an adequate substitute for opioid therapy but these treatments might serve to augment opioid therapy, thereby reducing dosage. There are reasons to question the ostensible risks of co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. As the causes of the opioid crisis have come into focus, it has become clear that the crisis resides predominantly in the streets and that efforts to curtail it by constraining opioid treatment in the clinic are unlikely to succeed.

Indexed as

opioid crisisopioid crisis causesopioid dosageopioid efficacyopioid mortalityopioidsopioid use disorder

Identifiers

PMID35295493
PMCPMC8915556
OpenAlexW3195427620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.