ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2022
Effectiveness and safety of opioids for dyspnea in patients with lung cancer: secondary analysis of multicenter prospective observational study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with the effectiveness of opioids for dyspnea in hospitalized patients with heart failure: a retrospective, multicenter, observational study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2025Article
- Emerging Therapeutic Strategies for Lung Cancer: The Role of Immunotherapy and HPV-Targeted Cancer Vaccines.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Open respiratory archivesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with lung cancer are more likely to have comorbidities [e.g., interstitial lung disease (ILD)], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and metastases that may affect dyspnea and the effectiveness and safety of opioids for dyspnea than other cancer types. Therefore, this study examined the effectiveness and safety of opioids for dyspnea, among the patients with lung cancer. Methods: The present study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study examining the effectiveness and safety of opioids for dyspnea in patients with cancer in Japan. For this secondary analysis, patients with lung cancer with a documented dyspnea Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline were included. The primary outcome was dyspnea NRS, and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale/Support Team Assessment Schedule (IPOS/STAS) scores change between baseline and 24 hours after baseline. As secondary outcomes, we investigated the predictors of opioid effectiveness for dyspnea improvement and adverse events (nausea, somnolence, and delirium). Results: This study analyzed 124 patients with lung cancer with known dyspnea NRS at baseline. The median age was 74, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 107 patients were 3-4. Both NRS and IPOS/STAS score of dyspnea significantly improved 24 hours after opioid initiation [-1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.12 to -1.17, P<0.001; -1.03; 95% CI: -1.21 to -0.85, P<0.001; respectively]. Moreover, the improvement of NRS score was greater than the minimal clinically important difference of 1 point. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, ILD was significantly associated with a better improvement [(hazard ratio (HR): 3.39, 95% CI: 1.34-11.09, P=0.043]. Somnolence was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (n=16), followed by delirium (n=9). Conclusions: Opioids were effective and safe for treating dyspnea in patients with lung cancer. Furthermore, lung cancer patients with ILD may benefit more from opioids.
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.