Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 506

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Neurolytic Celiac Plexus Block on Pain Relief, Quality of Life, and Survival in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Wong, Gilbert Y., Schroeder, Darrell R., Carns, Paul E., Wilson, Jack L., Martin, David P., Kinney, Michelle O., Mantilla, Carlos B., Warner, David O.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor associated with high mortality. Optimal pain control may improve quality of life (QOL) for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) vs opioids alone improves pain relief, QOL, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Enrolled (October 1997 and January 2001) were 100 eligible patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer experiencing pain. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year or until death. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NCPB or systemic analgesic therapy alone with a sham injection. All patients could receive additional opioids managed by a clinician blinded to the treatment assignment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale), QOL, opioid consumption and related adverse effects, and survival time were assessed weekly by a blinded observer. RESULTS: Mean (SD) baseline pain was 4.4 (1.7) for NCPB vs 4.1 (1.8) for opioids alone. The first week after randomization, pain intensity and QOL scores were improved (pain intensity, P< or =.01 for both groups; QOL, P<.001 for both groups), with a larger decrease in pain for the NCPB group (P =.005). From repeated measures analysis, pain was also lower for NCPB over time (P =.01). However, opioid consumption (P =.93), frequency of opioid adverse effects (all P>.10), and QOL (P =.46) were not significantly different between groups. In the first 6 weeks, fewer NCPB patients reported moderate or severe pain (pain intensity rating of > or =5/10) vs opioid-only patients (14% vs 40%, P =.005). At 1 year, 16% of NCPB patients and 6% of opioid-only patients were alive. However, survival did not differ significantly between groups (P =.26, proportional hazards regression). CONCLUSION: Although NCPB improves pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer vs optimized systemic analgesic therapy alone, it does not affect QOL or survival.

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.291.9.1092

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 506

Metadata

Authors
Wong, G. Y., Schroeder, D. R., Carns, P. E., Wilson, J. L., Martin, D. P., Kinney, M. O., Mantilla, C. B., & Warner, D. O.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-03-03
Volume
291
Issue
9
Pages
1092
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2008315683
Cited by
506
References
17
FWCI
29.47
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: Effect of Neurolytic Celiac Plexus Block on Pain Relief, Quality of Life, and Survival in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.291.9.1092
The paper
Wong, G. Y., Schroeder, D. R., Carns, P. E., Wilson, J. L., Martin, D. P., Kinney, M. O., Mantilla, C. B., & Warner, D. O. (2004). Effect of Neurolytic Celiac Plexus Block on Pain Relief, Quality of Life, and Survival in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.9.1092

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.