A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Subcutaneous Administration of Opioid for Cancer Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although the preferred route of opioid administration is oral, patients with cancer often require an alternative route. Options include continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSCI) or regularly scheduled intermittent subcutaneous injections (ISCI). CSCI maintains steady drug levels, theoretically avoiding the "bolus effect" of nausea and sedation immediately post-dose, and breakthrough pain prior to the next dose. However, portable infusion pumps can be costly to use. The Edmonton Injector is an inexpensive portable device for ISCI. CSCI and ISCI have not been directly compared. The objective of this trial was to compare CSCI and ISCI of opioid for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were recruited from two tertiary palliative care units. Eligibility criteria included stable cancer pain requiring opioid therapy, need for parenteral route, and normal cognition. Patients were randomly assigned to receive opioid by CSCI by portable pump or ISCI by Edmonton Injector for 48 hours, followed by crossover to the alternative modality for 48 hours. During each phase, placebo was administered by the alternative modality. The study was closed after 12 patients were entered, due to slow accrual. Eleven patients completed the study. There were no differences between CSCI and ISCI in mean visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, nausea or drowsiness; categorical rating score of pain; number of breakthrough opioid doses per day; global rating of treatment effectiveness; or adverse effects. In all cases, patients and investigators expressed no preference for one modality over another. Further research is required to confirm that opioid administration by CSCI and ISCI provide similar analgesic and adverse effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".