ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2025
Trialing Strategies Prior to Intrathecal Drug Delivery in Cancer-Related Pain: A Narrative Review.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Complication Profiles of Fully and Semi-Implanted Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: A Large Single-Center Chinese Cohort.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Recent advances and evolving strategies in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in neurology · 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
purpose of reviewCancer-related pain poses a significant clinical challenge, especially in advanced stages where systemic analgesic therapies become insufficient or intolerable. Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) offer targeted pain control while minimizing systemic exposure. However, the optimal trialing approach before permanent IDDS implantation remains contentious. This narrative review examines literature on IDDS trialing strategies in cancer pain management. A comprehensive search was conducted of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases and identified studies published up to January 2025. The review included prospective and retrospective studies, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series on trialing techniques, clinical outcomes, safety, tolerability, and efficacy. Key strateghies assessed include single-shot intrathecal bolus, multiple intrathecal boluses, continuous epidural infusion, and continuous intrathecal infusion. The review found significant variability in trialing practices, with limited high-quality comparative data to support standardized protocols. Trial success criteria varied widely, encompassing pain reduction, side effects, and patient-reported outcomes. RECENT
findingsThe studies described a range of trialing strategies with varying durations, opioid dosages, and criteria for success. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons between these approaches, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions about the relative effectiveness of continuous intrathecal, continuous epidural, and bolus-based trials. Some institutions bypassed trialing, prioritizing symptom relief over procedural risks.
conclusionThis review highlights the need for individualized trialing strategies based on patient status, institutional preferences, and clinician expertise. Given the variability in current practices, further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines and optimize clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40537714What 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.