ArticleBMC medicine2026
Establishing an efficacy hierarchy for breakthrough cancer pain management: a network meta-analysis of rapid-onset fentanyl formulations and morphine.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreakthrough cancer pain (BTP) is a common and debilitating condition affecting most patients with advanced malignancy. While multiple rapid-onset opioid formulations are available, a lack of comprehensive comparative evidence has hindered evidence-based treatment selection. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy of all available formulations and characterize their temporal analgesic profiles for BTP management.
methodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating rapid-onset fentanyl formulations (intranasal fentanyl spray [INFS], fentanyl buccal tablet [FBT], fentanyl pectin nasal spray [FPNS], fentanyl sublingual tablet [FST], fentanyl buccal soluble film [FBSF], and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate [OTFC]) and morphine preparations (oral morphine sulfate immediate release [MSIR] and subcutaneous morphine [SCM]) for BTP in adults. The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain intensity difference (PID) at 10, 15, 30, and 60 min post-administration. A frequentist random-effects NMA was conducted for each time point, and treatments were ranked using P-scores, a frequentist metric ranging from 0 to 1 that reflects the probability of a treatment being superior to competitors (higher values indicate better ranking; distinct from p-values for statistical significance).
resultsSeventeen RCTs involving 1,463 patients were included. Intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS) was consistently the most effective treatment across all time points, demonstrating statistically significant pain relief within 10 min (SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.59-1.10) and showing its peak effect at 15 min (SMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67-1.42). Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) consistently ranked as the second most effective agent. In contrast, immediate-release oral morphine (MSIR) did not achieve statistical superiority over placebo until the 30-minute mark (SMD: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.01-0.39; p = 0.036), confirming a comparatively delayed onset of action.
conclusionsThis analysis provides evidence for a relative efficacy hierarchy among rapid-onset opioids for BTP. INFS demonstrated the most rapid and sustained analgesia across all evaluated time points, while FBT consistently ranked second. The delayed onset of MSIR warrants consideration when selecting agents for rapid pain relief. Treatment selection should integrate these efficacy data with safety profiles, route feasibility, and patient-specific factors.
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.