Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety
Abstract
Opioids are used increasingly for chronic non-cancer pain. Controversy exists about their effectiveness and safety with long-term use. We analysed available randomised, placebo-controlled trials of WHO step 3 opioids for efficacy and safety in chronic non-cancer pain. The Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994) and Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2003. Inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of WHO step 3 opioids with placebo in chronic non-cancer pain. Double-blind studies reporting on pain intensity outcomes using validated pain scales were included. Fifteen randomised placebo-controlled trials were included. Four investigations with 120 patients studied intravenous opioid testing. Eleven studies (1025 patients) compared oral opioids with placebo for four days to eight weeks. Six of the 15 included trials had an open label follow-up of 6-24 months. The mean decrease in pain intensity in most studies was at least 30% with opioids and was comparable in neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. About 80% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (41%), nausea (32%) and somnolence (29%) being most common. Only 44% of 388 patients on open label treatments were still on opioids after therapy for between 7 and 24 months. The short-term efficacy of opioids was good in both neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, only a minority of patients in these studies went on to long-term management with op…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Medications such as opioids carry increased risks, including adverse side effects, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, abuse, and overdose.
“Moreover, medications such as opioids carry increased risks, including adverse side effects, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, abuse, and overdose [11–13].”
From Feasibility and Acceptability of an Abbreviated, Four-Week Mindfulness Program for Chronic Pain Management. (2020) · cites this paper as [12]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 1,216
- Authors
- Kalso, E., Edwards, J. E., Moore, A. R., & McQuay, H. J.
- Affiliations
- Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kalso, Eija
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 372-380
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143221646
- Cited by
- 1,216
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 70
- FWCI
- 9.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Helsingin ja Uudenmaan Sairaanhoitopiiri
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
- Keywords
- opioids, chronic non-cancer pain, opioid efficacy, opioid safety, adverse events, constipation, neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, chronic opioid use, opioid tolerance, opioid use disorder, pain intensity
- MeSH terms
- Analgesics, Opioid, Chronic Disease, Double-Blind Method, Drug Evaluation, Humans, Pain, Pain Measurement, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Drug Utilization Review
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