SynthesisActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Continuous intrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on partially implanted devices.
Synthesis in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextConventional pain therapies sometimes fail in patients with severe neuropathic pain or bone metastases. Intrathecal therapy provides an alternative but is resource-intensive, technically demanding and costly.
objectiveTo compare the advantages and limitations of partially implanted devices (PIDs) versus conventional medical management or totally implanted devices (TIDs) in adults with cancer-related pain.
methodsA systematic literature review up to September 2024 was conducted, with an updated search performed in August 2026. Eligible studies included those on adults with refractory cancer pain receiving PID intrathecal therapy compared with conventional therapy, and comparative studies evaluating PIDs versus TIDs. Pain intensity was analysed using a meta-analysis; a synthesis without meta-analysis was used for other outcomes.
resultsOf the 1,102 records, 15 were included, evaluating pain intensity, systemic opioid dose, quality of life (QoL), depression/anxiety, functional capacity and complications in PID-treated patients. A meta-analysis of pain intensity at 4 weeks showed statistically significant reduction with intrathecal therapy, which also reduced opioid use and improved QoL. Complication rates were lower than in conventional therapy. Investigations of depression/anxiety and functional capacity were limited, with inconsistent findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for pain intensity and QoL; low for opioid dose, depression/anxiety and complications; and very low for functional capacity.
conclusionsIntrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain with PIDs provides superior pain relief and improved QoL compared with the conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer pain. Evidence for psychological and functional outcomes remains limited. Overall certainty of evidence is low to moderate, but findings support intrathecal therapy as a clinically meaningful option for selected patients.
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.