Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pain and Poppies: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Opioid Analgesics

Open access
Trang, Tuan, Al-Hasani, Ream, Salvemini, Daniela, Salter, Michael W., Gutstein, Howard, Cahill, Catherine M.·2015·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Treating pain is one of the most difficult challenges in medicine and a key facet of disease management. The isolation of morphine by Friedrich Sertürner in 1804 added an essential pharmacological tool in the treatment of pain and spawned the discovery of a new class of drugs known collectively as opioid analgesics. Revered for their potent pain-relieving effects, even Morpheus the god of dreams could not have dreamt that his opium tincture would be both a gift and a burden to humankind. To date, morphine and other opioids remain essential analgesics for alleviating pain. However, their use is plagued by major side effects, such as analgesic tolerance (diminished pain-relieving effects), hyperalgesia (increased pain sensitivity), and drug dependence. This review highlights recent advances in understanding the key causes of these adverse effects and explores the effect of chronic pain on opioid reward. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Chronic pain is pervasive and afflicts >100 million Americans. Treating pain in these individuals is notoriously difficult and often requires opioids, one of the most powerful and effective classes of drugs used for controlling pain. However, their use is plagued by major side effects, such as a loss of pain-relieving effects (analgesic tolerance), paradoxical pain (hyperalgesia), and addiction. Despite the potential side effects, opioids remain the pharmacological cornerstone of modern pain therapy. This review highlights recent breakthroughs in understanding the key causes of these adverse effects and explores the cellular control of opioid systems in reward and aversion. The findings will challenge traditional views of the good, the bad, and the ugly 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.2711-15.2015

Cites

130 of 130 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 130 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Trang, T., Al-Hasani, R., Salvemini, D., Salter, M. W., Gutstein, H., & Cahill, C. M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2015-10-14
Volume
35
Issue
41
Pages
13879-13888
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1940659245
Cited by
273
References
130
FWCI
30.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Pain and Poppies: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Opioid Analgesics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.2711-15.2015
The paper
Trang, T., Al-Hasani, R., Salvemini, D., Salter, M. W., Gutstein, H., & Cahill, C. M. (2015). Pain and Poppies: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Opioid Analgesics. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2711-15.2015

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.