ArticlePloS one2025
Efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy on chronic cancer pain intensity of adults with cancer: A network meta-analysis protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic cancer pain is very common symptom in cancer patients, but this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved by the conventional three-step analgesic therapy. There are multiple non-pharmacological interventions for managing chronic cancer pain, but we haven't reached a consensus on which non pharmacological treatment is the best and these treatments are lack of high-quality evidence. In order to identify the most effective non-pharmaceutical therapy alternatives and investigate further possible medication interventions, this study will use network meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on chronic cancer pain patients and support clinical decision-making by prioritizing therapies according to the most valuable clinical outcomes for these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will carry out a systematic search of published randomized controlled trials (group, crossover, and parallel) in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases, without language or date restrictions, in accordance with the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines. Included studies must evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in patients with chronic cancer pain. Adult chronic cancer pain patients (≥ 18 years old) receiving pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment will be our target participants. Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, total effective rate of treatment, onset time, and quality of Life (QoL); Adverse reaction will be our secondary outcome. We'll utilize the mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, the odds ratio (OR) for binary variables, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for interval estimates. The Cochrane Bias Risk Tool (RoB2.0) will be used to assess the bias risk of every RCT trial included in NMA. We will use Review Manager 5.3 software to conduct heterogeneity testing and meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis will be performed by ADDIS1.16.8 software. The Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework will be used to evaluate the level of confidence in the NMA results. Besides, we will use SUCRA for ranking the network meta-analysis results, and we will also apply normalized entropy to verify the accuracy of the SUCRA ranking outcomes. DISCUSSION: This network meta-analysis will compare the efficacy of pharmacological versus non-pharmacological treatments for pain intensity in chronic cancer pain patients. The final analysis results may be significantly heterogeneous, because the population with cancerous pain suffers from different types of cancers. Owing to the databases primary reliance on our listed databases for inclusion, potentially valuable research will be overlooked. REGISTRATION: This study has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024505214).
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.