ReviewNeurological research and practice2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis to identify vertical limits for a high-dose opioid therapy.
Review in Neurological research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic pain represents the defining and quality-of-life limiting feature in patients with cancer pain (CP) or chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and is often treated with opioids. Over time, opioid use is frequently accompanied by necessity of an increasing dose due to pharmacological tolerance and progress of the underlying diseases. The potential side effects were found to correlate with accelerating doses. More recently, the opioid crisis in the United States has drawn attention to the adverse effects and toxicities. Until today it is unclear what high-dose opioid therapy is and guidelines are inconsistent regarding an evidence-based threshold.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine a threshold for high-dose opioid therapy. A systematic literature search was conducted in 4 databases from earliest publication available until May 2025. Studies were eligible if participants with CP or CNCP were able to self-titrate their opioid dosage to reach a sufficient pain relief.
methods4305 records were screened. Nineteen included studies with a total of 3111 participants investigating eight different opioids were included. The studies were assessed for risk of bias. Results were synthesised as oral morphine equivalents (OMEs).
resultsThe meta-analysis found a weighted mean of 74.7 mg OME per day and the 97.5% percentile corresponded to about 138 mg/d (range 134-139 mg/d) as a "high dose". In CNCP the limit was 78 mg/d (range 74-78 mg/d), whereas in CP it reached 288 mg/d (range 280-289 mg/d; p < 0.01).
conclusionDespite the overall moderate risk of bias of the included studies and the heterogeneity in underlying pain conditions, the reference range of typically prescribed dosages in a broad study population could be investigated. These systematically derived thresholds may enhance physicians' awareness in carefully tailoring opioid treatments and thereby contribute to improved pharmacotherapy safety. PROSPERO IDENTIFIER: CRD42020219256.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.