The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pain relief from intra-articular morphine after knee surgery: a qualitative systematic review
Abstract
Reduction of postoperative pain by injecting opioid into the knee joint is believed to support the hypothesis of peripheral opioid receptor activation in inflammation. The study design consisted of a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Main outcomes were pain intensity and the use of supplementary analgesics. Efficacy of intra-articular bupivacaine against placebo was used as an index of internal sensitivity. Evidence of efficacy was sought in both early (0-6 h after intra-articular injection) and late (6-24 h) periods. Thirty-six RCTs in knee surgery were found. Six had both a local anaesthetic control and placebo; four showed internal sensitivity. All four sensitive studies had at least one outcome showing efficacy of intra-articular morphine against placebo. Six studies compared intra-articular morphine with intravenous or intramuscular morphine or with intra-articular saline without a bupivacaine control. Four of the six studies showed greater efficacy for intra-articular morphine. There was no dose-response evident. No quantitative analysis of pooled data was done. We conclude that intra-articular morphine may have some effect in reducing postoperative pain intensity and consumption of analgesics. These studies had significant problems in design, data collection, statistical analysis and reporting. Trials of better methodological quality are needed for a conclusive answer that intra-articular morphine is analgesic, and that any analgesia produced is clinically useful.
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
Cites
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 4×
“Pre-hoc validity criteria were number of patients per treatment group≥10 (L’Abbé et al., 1987), standardised methods of measuring pain intensity, and general anaesthesia.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
The induction of pain: an integrative review
Millan, M. J. (1999) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(98)00048-3 · Cited by 1,774
EFFICACY OF PERIARTICULAR MULTIMODAL DRUG INJECTION IN TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL
BUSCH, C. A., SHORE, B. J., BHANDARI, R., GANAPATHY, S., MACDONALD, S. J., BOURNE, R. B., RORABECK, C. H., & MCCALDEN, R. W. (2006) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200605000-00005 · Cited by 512
Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication: An Analysis of Articles Used in Systematic Reviews
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974 · Cited by 290
Self-citationSusceptibility to Fraud in Systematic Reviews: Lessons from the Reuben Case
Marret, E., Elia, N., Dahl, J. B., McQuay, H. J., Møiniche, S., Moore, R. A., Straube, S., & Tramèr, M. R. (2009) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181c14c3d · Cited by 50
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalso, E., Tramèr, M. R., Carroll, D., McQuay, H. J., & Moore, A. R.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-134
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998682556
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.47
- 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: Pain relief from intra-articular morphine after knee surgery: a qualitative systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)03344-7
- The paper
- Kalso, E., Tramèr, M. R., Carroll, D., McQuay, H. J., & Moore, A. R. (1997). Pain relief from intra-articular morphine after knee surgery: a qualitative systematic review. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)03344-7
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.