ArticleEJVES vascular forum2026
Clinician Attitudes towards Analgesia for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia: A Survey of Vascular Specialists to Inform a Topical Morphine Trial.
Article in EJVES vascular forum, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Current analgesic strategies often treat pain associated with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) inadequately and frequently result in significant side effects. This cross sectional, web based, vascular specialist survey study aimed to explore clinician perspectives on current pain management and the potential role of topical morphine to inform future research in this area. Methods: A cross sectional online survey was distributed to vascular surgeons, physicians, and allied health professionals involved in the care of patients with CLTI. The 16 question survey included both closed and open ended items exploring perceptions of current analgesia adequacy, experience with topical morphine (e.g., morphine in gel preparations), and attitudes toward future clinical research. The questionnaire was disseminated via national and international vascular societies, professional mailing lists, and social media platforms. Responses were recorded anonymously and stratified using five point Likert scales (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Results: Of the 104 respondents, most were consultant vascular surgeons (57%) or speciality registrars (14%), with the majority based in the UK (89%). Pain control for CLTI was rated as suboptimal by 96% of respondents in outpatient settings and 78% in inpatient settings. No respondents strongly agreed that pain was adequately managed in either context. Only eight respondents reported experience using topical morphine; of these, three reported it as effective most of the time and five said it was effective sometimes. Nonetheless, 79% expressed willingness to randomise patients with ulcers to a trial of topical morphine, and 85% were willing to include patients without ulcers. All but one of the 104 respondents agreed that reducing systemic analgesia would be of significant patient benefit. Conclusion: There is both a clinical need and strong support among vascular clinicians for research into optimised analgesic regimens for CLTI. Despite limited current experience with topical morphine, the majority are willing to recruit to a trial.
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.