The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids
Open accessAbstract
Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Self-citationZhang, Q., Wang, C., Zheng, M., Li, Y., Li, J., Zhang, L., Shang, X., & Yan, C. (2015) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000369778 · Cited by 11,533
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Dong, Y., Hao, L., Shi, Z., Wang, G., Zhang, Z., & Han, C. (2013) · Urologia Internationalis · doi:10.1159/000351405 · Cited by 4,540
Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety
Kalso, E., Edwards, J. E., Moore, A. R., & McQuay, H. J. (2004) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.019 · Cited by 1,216 · cited 4×
“In total, information from 34 randomised trials with 5,546 patients was available (Table 1), much more information than available in previous reviews with 11 randomised trials and 1025 patients [11] or 16 randomised trials with 1,427 patients [16].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationEpidemiology of Constipation in North America: A Systematic Review
Higgins, P. D., & Johanson, J. F. (2004) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04114.x · Cited by 1,080
Lack of analgesic effect of opioids on neuropathic and idiopathic forms of pain
Arnér, S., & Meyerson, B. A. (1988) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(88)90198-4 · Cited by 991
Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain
Ballantyne, J. C., & Mao, J. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra025411 · Cited by 959
Moore, A. R., Gavaghan, D., Tramèr, R. M., Collins, L. S., & McQuay, J. H. (1998) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00140-7 · Cited by 604
Endocrine consequences of long-term intrathecal administration of opioids
Abs, R., Verhelst, J., Maeyaert, J., Van Buyten, J.-P., Opsomer, F., Adriaensen, H., Verlooy, J., Van Havenbergh, T., Smet, M., & Van Acker, K. (2000) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jcem.85.6.6615 · Cited by 491
Cited by
Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Chronic Opioid Therapy in Chronic Noncancer Pain
Chou, R., Fanciullo, G. J., Fine, P. G., Adler, J. A., Ballantyne, J. C., Davies, P., Donovan, M. I., Fishbain, D. A., Foley, K. M., Fudin, J., et al. (2009) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.10.008 · Cited by 2,192
EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision
Attal, N., Cruccu, G., Baron, R., Haanpää, M., Hansson, P., Jensen, T. S., & Nurmikko, T. (2010) · European Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02999.x · Cited by 1,873
Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: A meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects
Furlan, A. D. (2006) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.051528 · Cited by 873
Chou, R., Ballantyne, J. C., Fanciullo, G. J., Fine, P. G., & Miaskowski, C. (2009) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.10.007 · Cited by 383
Chou, R., Fanciullo, G. J., Fine, P. G., Miaskowski, C., Passik, S. D., & Portenoy, R. K. (2009) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.10.009 · Cited by 366
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J.
- Venue
- Arthritis Research & Therapy
- Published
- 2005-06-28
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- R1046-51
- ISSN
- 1478-6354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110791210
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/ar1782
- The paper
- Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (2005). Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids. Arthritis Research & Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar1782
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.
