A Comparison of the Clinical Effectiveness Between Low-Dose Strong Opioids and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of Mild Cancer Pain: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of low-dose strong opioids compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of mild cancer pain. METHODS: From September 2016 to September 2018, 66 patients with a malignant tumor and mild cancer pain admitted to the Department of Oncology of Dalian Fifth People's Hospital were divided into the group A (treated with ibuprofen sustained-release tablets for pain relief) and the group B (treated with oxycodone hydrochloride sustained-release tablets for pain relief). After 7 days of treatment, the pain relief (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), physical strength, quality of life scores (Zubrod/ECOG/WHO [ZPS]), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS], and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core15-Palliative [EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL] scores), and the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups were compared. The occurrence of adverse reactions in the mid-term (after one month and three months of treatment) between the two groups were also compared. RESULTS: Both groups had over 90% analgesic efficiency, but complete pain relief was more likely to be obtained in the group B (41.18%). The total analgesic efficiency in the group B was higher (100%) than in the group A (98.9%), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The differences in the physical strength and quality of life scores in the two groups before and after treatment were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The differences in the ZPS scores between the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The differences in ESAS and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL scores between groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The application of low-dose oxycodone hydrochloride sustained-release tablets as the initial medication for patients with mild cancer pain was safe and effective, and the adverse reactions were easy to manage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".