SynthesisPain research & management2026
Adjusted Indirect and Mixed Comparisons of Drug Therapy for Neuropathic Cancer Pain.
Synthesis in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adjusted Indirect and Mixed Comparisons of Drug Therapy for Neuropathic Cancer Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
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
objectivesTreatments for neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) are often based on guidelines or treatment data for neuropathic pain of noncancer origin. Therefore, their relative efficacy and safety are not well characterized and should be determined. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of various pharmacological interventions for NCP.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to June 13, 2024; 36 studies were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes included the effective pain relief rate, nausea and vomiting, and overall adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the CINeMA web application.
resultsThe combination of opioids, antiepileptics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) appeared to be the most effective treatment to reduce pain intensity (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] curve: 0.91), followed by the combination of antiepileptics and antidepressants (SUCRA: 0.90). For secondary outcomes, the combination of opioids and neurotropin was associated with the highest probability of achieving the best pain relief rate (SUCRA: 0.81), whereas vitamin B12 appeared to be relatively ineffective. Regarding safety, vitamin B12 was associated with the highest probability of being the safest treatment for nausea and vomiting (SUCRA: 0.90), followed by antiepileptic drugs (SUCRA: 0.87). For overall adverse events, antidepressants were associated with the highest probability of being the safest treatment (SUCRA: 0.86). For the primary outcome, 84.8% of the comparisons were rated as being of low or very low confidence according to the CINeMA method.
conclusionsAntiepileptics and antidepressants, alone or in combination, and certain opioid-based combinations may be effective for NCP based on current evidence, although the certainty of this evidence is low. Some plant-derived compounds also demonstrated potential analgesic effects, although these findings are exploratory and based on a limited number of trials, and further evidence is needed to verify their efficacy. Given the low certainty of most comparisons, clinicians should interpret these results cautiously and balance potential benefits with safety profiles when selecting treatments for NCP.
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.