Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Toxicity of Subcutaneous Ketamine in the Management of Cancer Pain

Open access
Hardy, Janet, Quinn, Stephen, Fazekas, Belinda, Plummer, John, Eckermann, Simon, Agar, Meera, Spruyt, Odette, Rowett, Debra, Currow, David C.·2012·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The anesthetic ketamine is widely used for pain related to cancer, but the evidence to support its use in this setting is weak. This study aimed to determine whether ketamine is more effective than placebo when used in conjunction with opioids and standard adjuvant therapy in the management of chronic uncontrolled cancer pain. Ketamine would be considered of net benefit if it provided clinically relevant improvement in pain with limited breakthrough analgesia and acceptable toxicity. Patients and Methods: In this multisite, dose-escalation, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial, ketamine or placebo was delivered subcutaneously over 3 to 5 days. Results: In all, 185 participants were included in the primary analysis. There was no significant difference between the proportion of positive outcomes (0.04; 95% CI, −0.10 to 0.18; P = .55) in the placebo and intervention arms (response rates, 27% [25 of 92] and 31% [29 of 93]). Pain type (nociceptive v neuropathic) was not a predictor of response. There was almost twice the incidence of adverse events worse than baseline in the ketamine group after day 1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.46 to 2.61; P < .001) and throughout the study. Those receiving ketamine were more likely to experience a more severe grade of adverse event per day (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18; P = .039). The number of patients needed to treat for one additional patient to have a positive outcome from ketamine was 25 (95% CI, six to ∞). The number needed to harm, because of toxicity-related withdrawal, was six (95% CI, four to 13). Conclusion: Ketamine does not have net clinical benefit when used as an adjunct to opioids and standard coanalgesics in 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.2012.42.1081

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Hardy, J., Quinn, S., Fazekas, B., Plummer, J., Eckermann, S., Agar, M., Spruyt, O., Rowett, D., & Currow, D. C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-10-10
Volume
30
Issue
29
Pages
3611-3617
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2169464865
Cited by
229
References
4
FWCI
28.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Toxicity of Subcutaneous Ketamine in the Management of Cancer Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2012.42.1081
The paper
Hardy, J., Quinn, S., Fazekas, B., Plummer, J., Eckermann, S., Agar, M., Spruyt, O., Rowett, D., & Currow, D. C. (2012). Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Toxicity of Subcutaneous Ketamine in the Management of Cancer Pain. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.1081

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.