Metadona para el tratamiento del dolor neuropático en adultos
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012499.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 17 mayo 2017see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Dolor y cuidados paliativos
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
Searched for studies: EM, MF, RS.
Obtained copies of studies: EM.
Selected which studies to include (two plus one arbiter): EM, MF, RS.
Extracted data from studies: EM, MF, RS.
Entered data into Review Manager 5: EM, MF.
Carried out the analysis: EM.
Interpreted the analysis: EM, MF, RS.
Drafted the final review: EM, MF.
Edited the final review: EM, MF, RS.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Saltonstall Fund for Pain Research, USA
External sources
-
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK
NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant: 13/89/29 ‐ Addressing the unmet need of chronic pain: providing the evidence for treatments of pain
Declarations of interest
EM: none known; EM is a pharmacist with a Master's degree in Pain Research, Education and Policy, and is involved in the pharmacological management of patients with chronic pain issues in a tertiary setting.
MF: none known.
RS: none known; RS is an anaesthesiologist with experience and expertise in acute pain management, including managing patients with chronic pain undergoing surgical procedures.
Acknowledgements
Cochrane Review Group funding acknowledgement: this project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
This review was based on a template developed in collaboration with the Cochrane Neuromuscular Diseases and Musculoskeletal Review Groups. The editorial process was managed by PaPaS.
We appreciate the contributions of the authors of the original review, Dr Simon Haroutiunian and Dr Arthur Lipman.
We would like to thank Joanne Abbott, Information Specialist, from PaPaS for running and compiling all the literature searches for our review.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2017 May 17 | Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults | Review | Ewan D McNicol, McKenzie C Ferguson, Roman Schumann | |
| 2017 Jan 04 | Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults | Protocol | Ewan D McNicol, McKenzie C Ferguson, Roman Schumann | |
Notes
Assessed for updating in 2018
A restricted search in December 2018 did not identify any potentially relevant studies. Therefore, this review has now been stabilised following discussion with the authors and editors. If appropriate, we will update the review if new evidence likely to change the conclusions is published, or if standards change substantially which necessitate major revisions.
Assessed for updating in 2021
At January 2021, we are not aware of 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 reassessed for updating in two 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.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Adult; Humans;
PICO
Study flow diagram.
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
| Methadone compared with placebo for neuropathic pain | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults with chronic neuropathic pain Settings: community Intervention: methadone, orally, various doses Comparison: placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative risk | No of studies, participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probable outcome with methadone | Probable outcome with placebo | |||||
| Moderate benefit: | At least 30% reduction in pain intensity 11/29 | At least 30% reduction in pain intensity 7/29 | Not calculated | 2 studies, 29 participants, 18 events | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | Downgraded 3 times: |
| Substantial benefit: | At least 50% reduction in pain intensity 0/19 | At least 50% reduction in pain intensity 0/19 | Not calculated | 1 study, 19 participants, 0 events | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | Downgraded 3 times: |
| Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy | 0/29 | 0/29 | Not calculated | 2 studies, 29 participants, 0 events | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | Downgraded 3 times: |
| Withdrawals due toadverse event withdrawal | 4/29 | 3/29 | Not calculated | 2 studies, 29 participants, 7 events | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | Downgraded 3 times: |
| Participants experiencing anyserious adverse | No data | No data | ‐ | ‐ | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| Deaths | No data | No data | ‐ | ‐ | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ‐ |
| CI: confidence interval. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
