Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Morfina oral para el dolor por cáncer

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub4Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 22 April 2016see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Philip J Wiffen

    Correspondence to: Thame, UK

    [email protected]

  • Bee Wee

    Nuffield Department of Medicine and Sir Michael Sobell House, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK

  • R Andrew Moore

    Plymouth, UK

Contributions of authors

PW initiated the review, carried out the searches, agreed on included and excluded trials, extracted the data, and wrote the text. RAM worked on the updated review for 2013 by extracting data, performing some analyses, and helped re‐write the text. BW provided clinical oversight. PW undertook the 2015 update. The review will be stabilised for five years as it is unlikely that new evidence with the potential to change the conclusions will be available in the near future.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Oxford Pain Research funds, UK

External sources

  • Department of Health, UK

  • The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK

    For the 2015 update: NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant: 13/89/29 ‐ Addressing the unmet need of chronic pain: providing the evidence for treatments of pain.

Declarations of interest

PW none known.

RAM has received institutional grant support from RB relating to individual patient level analyses of trial data on ibuprofen in acute pain and the effects of food on drug absorption of analgesics (2013), and from Grünenthal relating to individual patient level analyses of trial data regarding tapentadol in osteoarthritis and back pain (2015). He has received honoraria for attended boards with Menarini concerning methods of analgesic trial design (2014), with Novartis (2014) about the design of network meta‐analyses, and RB on understanding pharmacokinetics of drug uptake (2015).

BW is a specialist palliative care practitioner and manages patients with cancer pain.

This review was identified in a 2019 audit as not meeting the current definition of the Cochrane Commercial Sponsorship policy. At the time of its publication it was compliant with the interpretation of the existing policy. As with all reviews, new and updated, at update this review will be revised according to 2020 policy update.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Sylvia Bickley for developing the original search strategies for this review. Thanks also to Jayne Rees and Jodie Barden who were authors on the first published version of this review, and Henry McQuay who was an author the first two published versions.

Cochrane Review Group funding acknowledgement: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the Cochrane PaPaS Group. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, National Health Service (NHS) or the Department of Health.

The 2015 review update was developed as part of the NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant: 13/89/29 ‐ Addressing the unmet need of chronic pain: providing the evidence for treatments of pain.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Apr 22

Oral morphine for cancer pain

Review

Philip J Wiffen, Bee Wee, R Andrew Moore

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub4

2013 Jul 23

Oral morphine for cancer pain

Review

Philip J Wiffen, Bee Wee, R Andrew Moore

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub3

2007 Oct 17

Oral morphine for cancer pain

Review

Philip J Wiffen, Henry J McQuay

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Oral morphine for cancer pain

Review

Philip J Wiffen, J E Edwards, J Barden, Henry HJ McQuay, Jayne Rees

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003868

Differences between protocol and review

This review has developed considerably since the protocol was first published in 2002. Since that date the requirements for Cochrane reviews have changed significantly. For this update and the previous version we have added an outcome of no worse than mild pain and 'Risk of bias' tables and graphs.

Notes

A new search within two years is not likely to identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change the conclusions. Therefore, this review has now been stabilised following discussion with the authors and editors. The review will be re‐assessed for updating in five years. If appropriate, we will update the review before this date if new evidence likely to change the conclusions is published, or if standards change substantially which necessitate major revisions.

Assessed for updating in 2021

In February 2021 we did not identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change the conclusions. Therefore, this review has now been stabilised for five years following discussion with the authors and editors. If appropriate, we will update the review before this date if new evidence likely to change the conclusions is published, or if standards change substantially which necessitate major revisions.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Percentage of participants with oral morphine reporting no worse than mild pain. The size of the symbol is proportional to the size of the sample

Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Percentage of participants with oral morphine reporting no worse than mild pain. The size of the symbol is proportional to the size of the sample

Percentage of participants with oral morphine reporting an outcome equivalent to treatment success. The size of the symbol is proportional to the size of the sample

Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Percentage of participants with oral morphine reporting an outcome equivalent to treatment success. The size of the symbol is proportional to the size of the sample