Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38451443›Full record

SynthesisDrugs2024

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Caitlin M P Jones, Aili Langford, Chris G Maher, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Richard Day, Chung-Wei Christine Lin

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drugs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.5field-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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Caitlin M P JonesSydney Musculoskeletal Health, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. caitlin.jones@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9887-2493
Aili LangfordSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney and the Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-5136
Chris G MaherSydney Musculoskeletal Health, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-7857
Christina Abdel ShaheedSydney Musculoskeletal Health, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1258-5125
Richard DayDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney and St Vincent's Clinical Campus, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6045-6937
Chung-Wei Christine LinSydney Musculoskeletal Health, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6192-7238
The University of Sydney · AUCooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo. STUDY

designSystematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h). DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed.

resultsWe located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%). DISCUSSION: Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021249346.

Indexed as

Acute PainAnalgesics, OpioidMusculoskeletal PainAdministration, IntravenousAdministration, OralHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID38451443
PMCPMC10982090
OpenAlexW4392554989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.