ReviewCureus2026
Multimodal Pharmacologic Strategies for Chronic Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer pain remains inadequately controlled in some patients despite opioid therapy, particularly when neuropathic or mixed pain mechanisms are present. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of non-opioid or adjuvant analgesics used alongside opioids in adults with chronic cancer pain. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for English-language randomized controlled trials published from January 2010 to August 2025. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2). Ten trials involving 1,344 participants were included. In one trial, duloxetine was associated with clinically meaningful pain-response rates, although its primary mean pain-score analysis was not statistically significant. Low-dose gabapentin plus imipramine reduced pain and rescue-morphine use. Pregabalin reduced the morphine dose required to maintain pain control in one crossover trial, while other pregabalin studies showed numerical or non-significant benefits. Neither nabiximols trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, and nefopam did not significantly improve pain response or morphine consumption. Risk of bias was low in two trials, raised some concerns in one, and was high in seven. Overall, the evidence remains heterogeneous and insufficient to support a standard multimodal pharmacological regimen. Selected antidepressant and gabapentinoid strategies, particularly in neuropathic cancer pain, may benefit selected patients.
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.