The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Strategies to Manage the Adverse Effects of Oral Morphine: An Evidence-Based Report
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research Network. These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.
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
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-citationHoffman, H. G., Chambers, G. T., Meyer, W. J., Arceneaux, L. L., Russell, W. J., Seibel, E. J., Richards, T. L., Sharar, S. R., & Patterson, D. R. (2011) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9248-7 · Cited by 599
Mu Opioids and Their Receptors: Evolution of a Concept
Pasternak, G. W., & Pan, Y.-X. (2013) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.112.007138 · Cited by 578
Self-citationManagement of opioid side effects in cancer-related and chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review
McNicol, E., Horowicz-Mehler, N., Fisk, R. A., Bennett, K., Gialeli-Goudas, M., Chew, P. W., Lau, J., & Carr, D. (2003) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/s1526-5900(03)00556-x · Cited by 466
Opiates and elderly: use and side effects
Chau, D. (2008) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s1847 · Cited by 383
Metadata
- Authors
- Cherny, N., Ripamonti, C., Pereira, J., Davis, C., Fallon, M., McQuay, H., Mercadante, S., Pasternak, G., Ventafridda, V., & for the Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care Network
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2542-2554
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2132469876
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.22
- 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: Strategies to Manage the Adverse Effects of Oral Morphine: An Evidence-Based Report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.9.2542
- The paper
- Cherny, N., Ripamonti, C., Pereira, J., Davis, C., Fallon, M., McQuay, H., Mercadante, S., Pasternak, G., Ventafridda, V., & for the Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care Network. (2001). Strategies to Manage the Adverse Effects of Oral Morphine: An Evidence-Based Report. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.9.2542
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.