The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The WHO Analgesic Ladder for Cancer Pain Management: Stepping Up the Quality of Its Evaluation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder as an intervention for cancer pain management. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE from 1982 to 1995, hand search of textbooks and meeting proceedings, reference lists, and direct contact with authors. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any methodological design were included if they evaluated patients with cancer pain treated according to the WHO analgesic ladder and if the studies provided enough information to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved adequate analgesia with the use of the ladder. The strength of the evidence provided by each study was assessed separately by both authors using current concepts. DATA EXTRACTION: From the hard copy of each study report, the first author's name, publication year, study design, number of dropouts per study, and proportion of patients with adequate analgesia in each study were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies purporting to evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO ladder were included in the review. Meta-analysis was not performed because the studies were case series with no control groups. The studies had other limitation: none provided information on the conditions in which pain was assessed; two were retrospective; one had short follow-up periods; three had high withdrawal rates; and one had variable follow-up periods. Analgesia was adequate in 69% to 100% of patients analyzed in the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The studies available provide valuable information on the course of cancer pain and its treatment. However, the evidence they provide is insufficient to estimate confidently the effectiveness of the WHO analgesic ladder for the management of cancer pain. Until results from carefully designed controlled trials are available, it would be inappropriate to judge the performance of clinicians, programs, and institutions or to design policies based on such evidence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Prevalence of undertreatment in cancer pain. A review of published literature
Deandrea, S., Montanari, M., Moja, L., & Apolone, G. (2008) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn419 · Cited by 870
Pergolizzi, J., Böger, R. H., Budd, K., Dahan, A., Erdine, S., Hans, G., Kress, H., Langford, R., Likar, R., Raffa, R. B., et al. (2008) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2008.00204.x · Cited by 854
Graham, G. G., Davies, M. J., Day, R. O., Mohamudally, A., & Scott, K. F. (2013) · Inflammopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s10787-013-0172-x · Cited by 671
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Practical Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines, 4th Edition
Harden, R. N., Oaklander, A. L., Burton, A. W., Perez, R. S. G. M., Richardson, K., Swan, M., Barthel, J., Costa, B., Graciosa, J. R., & Bruehl, S. (2013) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/pme.12033 · Cited by 534
Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Pancreatitis: A Review
Singh, V. K., Yadav, D., & Garg, P. K. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19411 · Cited by 486
Metadata
- Authors
- Jadad, A. R.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-12-20
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 1870
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2013666113
- Cited by
- 453
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The WHO Analgesic Ladder for Cancer Pain Management: Stepping Up the Quality of Its Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03530230056031
- The paper
- Jadad, A. R. (1995). The WHO Analgesic Ladder for Cancer Pain Management: Stepping Up the Quality of Its Evaluation. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530230056031
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.