The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Switching from morphine to oral methadone in treating cancer pain: what is the equianalgesic dose ratio?
Abstract
PURPOSE: To define the dose ratio between morphine and methadone in relation to the previous morphine dose and the number of days needed to achieve the same level of analgesia in a group of patients with advanced cancer with pain who switched from morphine to oral methadone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study of 38 consecutive cancer patients who switched from morphine to oral methadone was performed. The intensity of pain before, during, and after the switching period was assessed through a four-point verbal Likert scale. The relationship between previous morphine dose and the final equianalgesic methadone dose, dose ratio between morphine and methadone, and the number of days required to achieve equianalgesia have been examined by means of Pearson's correlation coefficient, scatter plots, and Cuzick's test for trend respectively. RESULTS: Before the switch, the median oral equivalent daily dose of morphine was 145 mg/d; after the switch, the median equianalgesic oral methadone dose was 21 mg/d. A median time of 3 days (range, 1 to 7 days) was necessary to achieve the equianalgesia with oral methadone; the lower the preswitching morphine dose, the fewer days necessary to achieve equianalgesia with oral methadone (P < .001). Dose ratios ranged from 2.5:1 to 14.3:1 (median, 7.75:1), which indicated that, in most cases, the dose ratio was much higher than that suggested by the published equianalgesic tables. A strong linear positive relationship between morphine and methadone equianalgesic doses was obtained (Pearson's correlation coefficient, 0.91). The dose ratio increased with the increase of the previous morphine dose with a much higher increase at low morphine doses. CONCLUSION: The results of our study confirm that methadone is a potent opioid, more potent than believed. Caution is recommended when switching from any opioid to methadone, especially in patients who are tolerant to high doses of opioids.
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
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
Management of cancer pain in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines
Fallon, M., Giusti, R., Aielli, F., Hoskin, P., Rolke, R., Sharma, M., & Ripamonti, C. I. (2018) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy152 · Cited by 954
Self-citationEquianalgesic Dose Ratios for Opioids
Pereira, J., Lawlor, P., Vigano, A., Dorgan, M., & Bruera, E. (2001) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00294-9 · Cited by 537
Lawlor, P. G. (2002) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.10389 · Cited by 116
Management of Chronic Neuropathic Pain With Methadone: A Review of 13 Cases
Altier, N., Dion, D., Boulanger, A., & Choinière, M. (2005) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000125247.95213.53 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Ripamonti, C., Groff, L., Brunelli, C., Polastri, D., Stavrakis, A., & De Conno, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3216-3221
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1923310725
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.95
- 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: Switching from morphine to oral methadone in treating cancer pain: what is the equianalgesic dose ratio? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.10.3216
- The paper
- Ripamonti, C., Groff, L., Brunelli, C., Polastri, D., Stavrakis, A., & De Conno, F. (1998). Switching from morphine to oral methadone in treating cancer pain: what is the equianalgesic dose ratio? Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.10.3216
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.