The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy of Intrathecal Morphine and Clonidine in the Treatment of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury
Abstract
We performed a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial in 15 patients to determine the efficacy of intrathecal morphine or clonidine, alone or combined, in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. The combination of morphine and clonidine produced significantly more pain relief than placebo 4 h after administration; either morphine or clonidine alone did not produce as much pain relief. In addition, lumbar and cervical cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations, sampled at these levels at different times after administration were examined for a relationship between pain relief and CSF drug concentration. Lumbar CSF drug concentrations were initially several orders of magnitude larger than those in cervical CSF. After 1–2 h, the concentrations of morphine in cervical CSF markedly exceeded those of clonidine. The concentration of morphine in the cervical CSF and the degree of pain relief correlated significantly. We conclude that intrathecal administration of a mixture of clonidine and morphine is more effective than either drug administered alone and is related to the CSF-borne drug concentration above the level of spinal cord injury. If there is pathology that may restrict CSF flow, consideration should be given to intrathecal administration above the level of spinal cord damage to provide an adequate drug concentration in this region. Implications Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury is very difficult to control adequately by using currently available techniques. We have performed a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study demonstrating that administration of a combination of morphine and clonidine into the spinal fluid can provide substantial pain relief in some people with this type of pain.
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
Cited by
Siddall, P. J., McClelland, J. M., Rutkowski, S. B., & Cousins, M. J. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00452-9 · Cited by 964
Self-citationMartin, T. J., Kim, S. A., Buechler, N. L., Porreca, F., & Eisenach, J. C. (2007) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200702000-00020 · Cited by 109
Pain in medical inpatients: an under-recognised problem?
Conway Morris, A., & Howie, N. (2009) · Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · doi:10.4997/jrcpe.2009.401 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Siddall, P. J., Molloy, A. R., Walker, S., Mather, L. E., Rutkowski, S. B., & Cousins, M. J.
- Venue
- Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1493-1498
- ISSN
- 0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091369799
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.93
- 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 Efficacy of Intrathecal Morphine and Clonidine in the Treatment of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000539-200012000-00037
- The paper
- Siddall, P. J., Molloy, A. R., Walker, S., Mather, L. E., Rutkowski, S. B., & Cousins, M. J. (2000). The Efficacy of Intrathecal Morphine and Clonidine in the Treatment of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200012000-00037
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.