Cited by 522Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchPain Management and Opioid UsePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial of sustained release morphine for the management of refractory dyspnoea

Open access
Abernethy, Amy P, Currow, David C, Frith, Peter, Fazekas, Belinda S, McHugh, Annie, Bui, Chuong·2003·BMJ

Abstract

Objective To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving the sensation of breathlessness in patients in whom the underlying aetiology is maximally treated. Design Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover study. Setting Four outpatient clinics at a hospital in South Australia. Participants 48 participants who had not previously been treated with opioids (mean age 76, SD 5) with predominantly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (42, 88%) were randomised to four days of 20 mg oral morphine with sustained release followed by four days of identically formulated placebo, or vice versa. Laxatives were provided as needed. Main outcome measures Dyspnoea in the morning and evening as shown on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, quality of sleep, wellbeing, performance on physical exertion, and side effects as measured at the end of the four day treatment period. Results 38 participants completed the study; three withdrew because of definite and two because of possible side effects of morphine (nausea, vomiting, and sedation). Participants reported significantly different dyspnoea scores when treated with morphine: an improvement of 6.6 mm (95% confidence interval 1.6 mm to 11.6 mm) in the morning and of 9.5 mm (3.0 mm to 16.1 mm) in the evening (P = 0.011 and P = 0.006, respectively). During the period in which they were taking morphine participants also reported better sleep (P = 0.039). More participants reported distressing constipation while taking morphine (9 v 1, P = 0.021) in spite of using laxatives. All other side effects were not significantly worse with morphine, although the study was not powered to address side effects. Conclusions Sustained release, oral morphine at low dosage provides significant symptomatic improvement in refractory dyspnoea in the community setting.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.523

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Opioids provide benefit of only borderline clinical significance for breathlessness.

    “Even opioids, with most evidence to support their use, provide benefit of only borderline clinical significance.”

    From The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion reports a modest 7–10 mm improvement in breathlessness and calls it clinically significant. The Limitations section acknowledges that the clinical significance of that change may be questioned, but describes a 5–10% improvement as welcome. These passages support a modest benefit, not the categorical claim that opioids provide benefit of only borderline clinical significance. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abernethy, A. P., Currow, D. C., Frith, P., Fazekas, B. S., McHugh, A., & Bui, C.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Repatriation General Hospital (AU)
  • Nepean Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Currow, David C
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-09-04
Volume
327
Issue
7414
Pages
523-528
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2157851934
Cited by
521
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 40
FWCI
11.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
sustained-release morphine, oral morphine, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, opioid therapy, dyspnea, sleep quality, constipation, opioid side effects, palliative care, community-based treatment
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Aged, Chronic Disease, Delayed-Action Preparations, Double-Blind Method, Dyspnea, Female, Humans, Male, Morphine, Narcotics, Cross-Over Studies, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

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