Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The WHO Analgesic Ladder for Cancer Pain Management: Stepping Up the Quality of Its Evaluation

Jadad, Alejandro R.·1995·JAMA

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1995.03530230056031

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 453

Metadata

Authors
Jadad, A. R.
Venue
JAMA
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.