↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Methadone for cancer pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
40 X users
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


96 Dimensions

Readers on

334 Mendeley
Methadone for cancer pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003971.pub4
Pubmed ID

Alexander B Nicholson, Graeme R Watson, Sheena Derry, Philip J Wiffen


This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current methodological requirements. Methadone is a synthetic opioid that presents some challenges in dose titration and is recognised to cause potentially fatal arrhythmias in some patients. It does have a place in therapy for people who cannot tolerate other opioids but should be initiated only by experienced practitioners. This review is one of a suite of reviews on opioids for cancer pain. To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of methadone as an analgesic in adults and children with cancer pain. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov, to May 2016, without language restriction. We also checked reference lists in relevant articles. We sought randomised controlled trials comparing methadone (any formulation and by any route) with active or placebo comparators in people with cancer pain. All authors agreed on studies for inclusion. We retrieved full texts whenever there was any uncertainty about eligibility. One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis. We extracted information on the effect of methadone on pain intensity or pain relief, the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain'. We looked for data on withdrawal and adverse events. We looked specifically for information about adverse events relating to appetite, thirst, and somnolence. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We revisited decisions made in the earlier version of this review and excluded five studies that were previously included. We identified one new study for this update. This review includes six studies with 388 participants. We did not identify any studies in children.The included studies differed so much in their methods and comparisons that no synthesis of results was feasible. Only one study (103 participants) specifically reported the number of participants with a given level of pain relief, in this case a reduction of at least 20% - similar in both the methadone and morphine groups. Using an outcome of 'no worse than mild pain', methadone was similar to morphine in effectiveness, and most participants who could tolerate methadone achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Adverse event withdrawals with methadone were uncommon (12/202) and similar in other groups. Deaths were uncommon except in one study where the majority of participants died, irrespective of treatment group. For specific adverse events, somnolence was more common with methadone than with morphine, while dry mouth was more common with morphine than with methadone. None of the studies reported effects on appetite.We judged the quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to risk of bias and sparse data. For specific adverse events, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, sparse data, and indirectness, as surrogates for appetite, thirst and somnolence were used.There were no data on the use of methadone in children. Based on low-quality evidence, methadone is a drug that has similar analgesic benefits to morphine and has a role in the management of cancer pain in adults. Other opioids such as morphine and fentanyl are easier to manage but may be more expensive than methadone in many economies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 330 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Researcher 36 11%
Other 29 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 5%
Other 74 22%
Unknown 89 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 10%
Psychology 17 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 100 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 412,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 412,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.