Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 736

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Clinical Trial of an Implantable Drug Delivery System Compared With Comprehensive Medical Management for Refractory Cancer Pain: Impact on Pain, Drug-Related Toxicity, and Survival

Smith, Thomas J., Staats, Peter S., Deer, Timothy, Stearns, Lisa J., Rauck, Richard L., Boortz-Marx, Richard L., Buchser, Eric, Català, Elena, Bryce, David A., Coyne, Patrick J., Pool, George E.·2002·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) have been used to manage refractory cancer pain, but there are no randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing them with comprehensive medical management (CMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 202 patients on an RCT of CMM versus IDDS plus CMM. Entry criteria included unrelieved pain (visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores ≥ 5 on a 0 to 10 scale). Clinical success was defined as ≥ 20% reduction in VAS scores, or equal scores with ≥ 20% reduction in toxicity. The main outcome measure was pain control combined with change of toxicity, as measured by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, 4 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Sixty of 71 IDDS patients (84.5%) achieved clinical success compared with 51 of 72 CMM patients (70.8%, P = .05). IDDS patients more often achieved ≥ 20% reduction in both pain VAS and toxicity (57.7% [41 of 71] v 37.5% [27 of 72], P = .02). The mean CMM VAS score fell from 7.81 to 4.76 (39% reduction); for the IDDS group, the scores fell from 7.57 to 3.67 (52% reduction, P = .055). The mean CMM toxicity scores fell from 6.36 to 5.27 (17% reduction); for the IDDS group, the toxicity scores fell from 7.22 to 3.59 (50% reduction, P = .004). The IDDS group had significant reductions in fatigue and depressed level of consciousness (P < .05). IDDS patients had improved survival, with 53.9% alive at 6 months compared with 37.2% of the CMM group (P = .06). CONCLUSION: IDDSs improved clinical success in pain control, reduced pain, significantly relieved common drug toxicities, and improved survival in patients with refractory cancer 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2002.02.118

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 736

Metadata

Authors
Smith, T. J., Staats, P. S., Deer, T., Stearns, L. J., Rauck, R. L., Boortz-Marx, R. L., Buchser, E., Català, E., Bryce, D. A., Coyne, P. J., & Pool, G. E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2002-10-01
Volume
20
Issue
19
Pages
4040-4049
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2152791044
Cited by
736
References
3
FWCI
27.48
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: Randomized Clinical Trial of an Implantable Drug Delivery System Compared With Comprehensive Medical Management for Refractory Cancer Pain: Impact on Pain, Drug-Related Toxicity, and Survival. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2002.02.118
The paper
Smith, T. J., Staats, P. S., Deer, T., Stearns, L. J., Rauck, R. L., Boortz-Marx, R. L., Buchser, E., Català, E., Bryce, D. A., Coyne, P. J., & Pool, G. E. (2002). Randomized Clinical Trial of an Implantable Drug Delivery System Compared With Comprehensive Medical Management for Refractory Cancer Pain: Impact on Pain, Drug-Related Toxicity, and Survival. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.02.118

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.