ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Comparison of external system and implanted system in intrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain in China: A retrospective study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case report: Technical risk mitigation and management strategies of semi-implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems for advanced cancer pain: a case-based study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of single and double catheter intrathecal drug delivery systems in patients with refractory neck and abdominal cancer pain.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Upper thoracic spine puncture and caudal advance of an epidural catheter for adequate analgesia in a patient with breast cancer with chest and upper back pain: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of external system and implanted system in intrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain in China: A retrospective study.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIntrathecal therapy (ITT) via an implanted system was demonstrated for the treatment of refractory cancer pain for decades. Recently, the dissemination of ITT is enhanced in an external system way in Asia for a lower implantation cost. This study compares the efficacy, safety, and cost of the two ITT systems in refractory cancer pain patients in China.
methodsOne hundred and thirty-nine cancer pain patients who underwent implantation of the ITT system were included. One hundred and three patients received ITT via the external system (external group), while 36 patients received ITT via the implanted system (implanted group). A 1:2 propensity score matching procedure was used to yield a total of 89 patients for the final analysis. Medical records of included patients were retrospectively reviewed and pain scores, incidences of complications, and costs were compared.
resultsITT via the external system provided pain relief as potent as ITT via the implanted system but was less time-consuming in the implantation phase (13 vs. 19 days, p < .01). Nausea/vomiting and urinary retention were the most frequent adverse events in both external and implanted groups (32.14%, 16.07% vs. 36.36%, 21.21%). No significant difference was found in the incidences of all kinds of complications. Compared to the implanted group, the external group cost less for the initial implantation (7268 vs. 26,275 US dollar [USD], p < .001) but had a significant higher maintenance cost (606.62 vs. 20.23 USD calculated monthly, p < .001).
conclusionsITT via the external system is as effective and safe as that via the implanted system and has the advantage of being cheap in the upfront implantation but costs more during the maintenance process in China.
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.