MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the effectiveness of oral morphine versus oral tramadol on early pain control in opioid-naive patients with moderate cancer pain.

2019· article· en· W2971374060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramila Shilpakar, Bishnu Dutta Paudel, Aarati Shah, Soniya Dulal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTramadolOpioidClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialMorphineCancer painAnalgesicBrief Pain InventoryBreakthrough PainPain ladderAnesthesiaCancerPhysical therapyChronic painInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11581 Background: Adequate pain control, an essential part of cancer care remains a challenge in resource limited countries like Nepal. Early use of morphine for Moderate Cancer Pain (MCP) and not sequential World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder seems reasonable in the setting of limited access to health care. The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy of oral Morphine (MOR) with oral Tramadol (TRM) in control of pain as well as physical wellbeing in patients (pts) with MCP using Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Methods: An IRB approved randomized phase II trial was performed in opioid-naive pts with MCP as defined by pain score in Numerical rating score (NRS)of 4-6.Patients were randomized to receive MOR syrup 5 mg 4 hourly or TRM 50 mg four times a day. Titration of dose was done in both groups for 3 days as per standard recommendation for MOR or till maximum recommended daily dose for TRM. MOR was changed to prolonged release form at Day 4.The primary endpoint was number of early responders, defined as pts with at least 20% reduction in pain intensity on NRS on Day 3. Secondary outcome was number of patients with highly meaningful pain reduction, defined as decrease in pain intensity on NRS by ≥ 5 and improvement in physical well-being with ESAS at Day 7. Results: 68 pts consented and were randomized, 34 in each arm. The primary endpoint occurred in 94.1% pts in MOR and 55.9% in TRM (p <0.001). Number of patients with highly meaningful pain reduction was significantly higher in MOR than in TRM (76.5% vs. 32.35%; p<0.001). Improvement in general physical wellbeing as assessed by ESAS was better in morphine group. No difference in adverse effects was noted between the treatment arms. Conclusions: In this study Morphine was superior to Tramadol in the control of pain with statistically significant difference in the primary and secondary endpoints. So, early use of morphine skipping the WHO sequential analgesic ladder for moderate cancer pain seems a higher value option in resource scarce country with limited access to healthcare.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207