The study objective was to assess methodological quality of opioid conversion systematic reviews. The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were used to identify the systematic reviews from the earliest available date until April 2012. Studies were not restricted based on type of opioid, country, or languages. Methodological quality was evaluated using the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)." A total of 2772 articles were found from which five met inclusions criteria. No review mentioned about the duplicate study selection and data extraction. Two reviews included a list of studies that were excluded studies. One study did not provided information on the characteristics of primary studies that were included. Of the three reviews that evaluated the quality of primary studies, two used the quality of included studies in formulating conclusions. Only two reviews provided information about conflicts of interest. Of the five included systematic reviews, three reached a moderate score; two had poor quality. Specific recommendations to improve methodological quality would include performing the data selection and extraction in duplicate, listing or showing the flowchart of studies that were included and excluded along with the reasons, including the main studies data illustrating tables, and including an assessment of the quality of the primary included studies.
BACKGROUND: To assess the role of transdermal opioids as a front-line approach to moderate to severe cancer pain.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by two authors. An analysis of the level of evidence and risk/benefit ratio was performed for all of the selected trials. A combined analysis of the included studies to assess the level of evidence, risk/benefit ratio and strength of the recommendations was performed to determine the place of transdermal opioids in the treatment of cancer when compared with oral morphine.
RESULTS: Thirteen papers were included in the analysis. The level of evidence was considered low for transdermal opioids (without distinction between transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine) or transdermal fentanyl, and very low for transdermal buprenorphine. The risk/benefit ratio was considered uncertain for both transdermal opioids (fentanyl and buprenorphine) considered together and transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine alone. The strength of the final recommendations (using the GRADE system) was weak negative for transdermal opioids (transdermal fentanyl plus transdermal buprenorphine) and transdermal fentanyl, and strong negative for transdermal buprenorphine.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of slow release oral morphine probably remains the preferred approach for these patients, with the use of transdermal opioids to be reserved for selected patients.
INTRODUCTION: Up to 80% of people with cancer experience pain at some time during their illness, and most will need opioid analgesics. This review assesses how different opioid analgesics compare, in terms of both pain control and adverse effects, in people with cancer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: what are the effects of opioids in treating cancer-related pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS: We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: codeine, dihydrocodeine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol.
The study objective was to assess methodological quality of opioid conversion systematic reviews. The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were used to identify the systematic reviews from the earliest available date until April 2012. Studies were not restricted based on type of opioid, country, or languages. Methodological quality was evaluated using the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)." A total of 2772 articles were found from which five met inclusions criteria. No review mentioned about the duplicate study selection and data extraction. Two reviews included a list of studies that were excluded studies. One study did not provided information on the characteristics of primary studies that were included. Of the three reviews that evaluated the quality of primary studies, two used the quality of included studies in formulating conclusions. Only two reviews provided information about conflicts of interest. Of the five included systematic reviews, three reached a moderate score; two had poor quality. Specific recommendations to improve methodological quality would include performing the data selection and extraction in duplicate, listing or showing the flowchart of studies that were included and excluded along with the reasons, including the main studies data illustrating tables, and including an assessment of the quality of the primary included studies.
