Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

No pain, no gain: clinical excellence and scientific rigour – lessons learned from IA morphine

Kalso, Eija, Smith, Lesley, McQuay, Henry J., Moore, Andrew R.·2002·Pain

Abstract

The effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) morphine in arthroscopic procedures of the knee joint was analysed in all randomised and controlled trials that included injections of morphine and placebo into the knee joint, and where the data were analysable. Sensitivity of the studies and effectiveness were analysed for three different periods: immediate (0-2h), early (2-6h) and late (6-30h). Sensitivity for each period was assumed if pain intensity was at least 30% of the maximum of 100 on the visual analogue scale in the placebo group. Six different doses (1-10mg) of IA morphine were compared with placebo. The injections were made at the end of surgery, before the arthroscope was removed from the joint. In the immediate period 7/15 sensitive trials were positive, in the early period 8/12 sensitive trials were positive and in the late period 10/13 sensitive trials were positive. Most positive studies had used higher doses (3-5mg) compared with negative studies that had mainly used 1mg. Two studies using patient controlled analgesia consumption of analgesics as an outcome were also positive. The only sensitive study of four dose-response comparisons indicated that 5mg of IA morphine was more effective than 1mg. The only sensitive study of three cross-route comparisons showed no difference between 5mg of IA and 5mg of intra-muscular morphine. All insensitive trials, including placebo (except two individual comparisons), cross-route and dose-response comparisons, were negative. The analysis of sensitive studies indicates that 5mg of IA morphine injected into the knee joint provides postoperative pain relief for up to 24h. A minimum of 30% of the maximum possible pain intensity is needed for an analgesic effect to be detected in a study.

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 · 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00019-2

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Kalso, E., Smith, L., McQuay, H. J., & Moore, A. R.
Venue
Pain
Published
2002-08
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
269-275
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094835720
Cited by
189
References
1
FWCI
14.22
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: No pain, no gain: clinical excellence and scientific rigour – lessons learned from IA morphine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00019-2
The paper
Kalso, E., Smith, L., McQuay, H. J., & Moore, A. R. (2002). No pain, no gain: clinical excellence and scientific rigour – lessons learned from IA morphine. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00019-2

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.