ArticleBJC reports2023
Best analgesia control in pancreatic adenocarcinoma study: justification and feasibility of a randomised trial of early EUS-CPN versus standard care-a prospective observational study (The BAC-PAC study).
Article in BJC reports, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLimited and conflicting trial data is available on the efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Coeliac Plexus Neurolysis (EUS-CPN). This study aimed to assess the feasibility, justification and to inform design considerations of a randomised trial of early EUS-CPN versus standard care.
methodsThis was a questionnaire-based prospective observational study of patients with inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were self-reporting their performance status, pain levels, analgesic use, quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resource use, on a monthly basis.
resultsOver a total period of twelve months 143 patients were screened for eligibility, of which 56 met the criteria. In total, 12 (21%) patients were recruited. The median survival from the first record of pain was 5.2 (IQR 2.46-5.9) months. In total, 80% of the questionnaires were completed. The median Visual Analogue Score for pain was 2.6 (0.8-5.1) and the median daily morphine dose was 36 (20-48) mg. DISCUSSION: Recruitment rates remained low throughout this study. Despite these limitations, overall, this study supports the justification of trial administering endoscopic analgesia. However, uncertainties remain with regards to its feasibility. In a future trial, data collection procedures need to minimise burden to patients. Further observational research with a larger sample size, longer follow-up and refined procedures is required.
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.