↓ Skip to main content

Nebulised morphine for severe interstitial lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nebulised morphine for severe interstitial lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002872
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riccardo Polosa, Alexander Simidchiev, E. Haydn Walters

Abstract

The evidence to support the use of nebulized morphine to improve dyspnoea and exercise limitation in terminally ill patients with chronic lung disease is conflicting. To assess the effectiveness of nebulized morphine in reducing dyspnoea in patients with end-stage interstitial lung disease RCTs and good quality CCTs were identified by searching Medline, Embase, Cinahl as well as the Cochrane controlled clinical trial register. The following search terms were used: (inhaled OR nebulised)/AND/morphine AND/Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis/or/pulmonary fibrosis/or/idiopathic interstitial pneumonia/or/nonspecific interstitial pneumonia/or/non-specific interstitial pneumonia/or/usual interstitial pneumonia/or/desquamative interstitial pneumonia/or/cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis/or/interstitial pneumonia/or/idiopathic interstitial lung disease/or/chronic interstitial pneumonia Any RCT and adequate quality CCT in adult patients with ILD that compared nebulized morphine with a control group. Only one small RCT was identified. Compared to placebo (normal saline), administration of low-dose nebulized morphine (2.5 and 5.0 mg) to six patients with ILD did not improve maximal exercise performance, and did not reduce dyspnoea during exercise. The hypothesis that nebulized morphine may reduce dyspnoea in patients with interstitial lung disease has not been confirmed in the single small RCT identified.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Unspecified 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 16 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 55%
Unspecified 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%