SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Risk factors and clinical significance of refractory pain in patients with bone metastases: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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.
- Oxycodone combined with pulsed radiofrequency for refractory cancer pain from spinal metastases: a randomized controlled study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Not Just Neurons: Pain Is Orchestrated in Partnership with Many Non-neuronal Cells.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Understanding Cancer-Related Pain: Pathophysiology, Classification, and Treatment Modalities.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Refractory cancer pain, especially bone pain, presents a major clinical challenge that is difficult to manage despite the use of multimodal analgesic strategies. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of refractory cancer pain in this patient population and to identify potential predictors that may increase the likelihood of developing such pain. In addition, we performed a systematic review of previous studies that delve into more effective pain strategies. Methods: This meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on risk factors for refractory metastatic bone pain. The inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting the incidence and/or risk factors associated with refractory cancer pain, providing relevant statistical measures such as odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR), or relative risks (RR). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the R programming language. Results: The present study included eight studies with a cumulative sample size of 2,774 patients. The aggregated incidence of refractory cancer pain was found to be 70% [95% confidence interval (CI): 42 to 88%] using a random-effects model, highlighting a significant prevalence of pain that remains unresponsive to treatment. Notably, the heterogeneity among the included studies was considerable ( Conclusion: Refractory cancer pain, observed in approximately 70% of patients with bone metastases, poses a significant clinical challenge. Refractory cancer pain predictors include the presence of multiple and lytic bone metastases, severe acute pain, breakthrough pain, and psychological comorbidities. Collectively, our findings highlight the need for improved pain management strategies that address both the physical and psychological aspects of cancer pain.
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.