SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024
Effectiveness of epidural morphine for the treatment of cancer pain in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm-a systematic review.
Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as epidural morphine, have been considered. This study aimed to review the literature comparing the effects of epidural administration of morphine with the oral route. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm. A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2023. The retrieved study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and qualitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Prospero: CRD42021264728). Only one RCT, a crossover trial, was included in this systematic review. The study was conducted with ten participants (one withdrawal) and reported a statistically significant difference between both subcutaneous and epidural morphine solutions and oral morphine. The adverse events were not described. The included study presents some concerns of bias and low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness and security of epidural morphine administration. The available literature does not suffice to elucidate whether morphine administration via the epidural route is more effective than other routes. Further RCTs are necessary to improve the level of evidence on the effectiveness and risk-benefit of epidural morphine in the management of cancer pain in gastrointestinal neoplasm patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38180558What 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.