The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yang, Yulan; Wen, Jian; Hong, Jianyun

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1618767

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 1618767 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1618767

The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yulan Yang,¹Jian Wen,²and Jianyun Hong¹

Academic Editor: Morry Silberstein

Received18 Mar 2020

Revised23 Apr 2020

Accepted07 May 2020

Published25 May 2020

Abstract

Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; ) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; ). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; ). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; ). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.

1. Introduction

Pain is one of the most prevalent symptoms in cancer patients, when the prevalence is estimated to be more than 70% [1]. Because of its high prevalence and negative impact on patients’ quality of life, pain becomes a focal point for intervention in cancer survivorship. The World Health Organization (WHO) promotes three-step analgesic method and recommends that opioids may be used as first-line treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain [2]. Although there is an increased awareness of cancer pain in the literature [3, 4], the overall effect is still not satisfactory. A meta-analyses by Deandrea et al. [5] indicated that almost a third of cancer patients failed to receive adequate treatment. In addition, there will be a series of adverse reactions after taking a lot of analgesics. Consequently, to find some more effective treatments for cancer pain, many individuals have turned their attention to other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) [6, 7], such as acupuncture plus drug therapy, psychoeducational interventions, music interventions, Chinese herbal medicine therapy, qigong, homeopathy (Traumeel), and creative arts therapies [7].

Auricular therapy is a conventional therapy in traditional Chinese medicine, and its effect is gradually recognized. Since the 1980s, studies in auricular therapy for pain management have increased [8–12], such as for perioperative pain [11, 13, 14], dysmenorrheal [15–17], arthralgia [18], and cancer pain [19]. In order to gather and evaluate the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In order to obtain relevant studies, we systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), WanFang Data Information Site, and Chinese Biology Medicine Disc (CBMdisc) from inception to February 21, 2020. The following Search terms were used for cancer pain: “Cancer” OR “Tumor” OR “carcinoma” OR “Oncological” OR “Malignancy”AND “Ache” OR “Aches” OR “Physical Suffering” OR “Suffering, Physical”. While the following Search terms were used for auricular therapy: “acupuncture, Auricular” OR “auricular therapy” OR “auricular needle” OR “auricular acupressure” OR “ear acupuncture” OR “ear acupressure” OR “acupuncture ear” OR “otopoint” OR “otoneedle” OR “auriculoacupuncture” OR “auriculotherapy”. The specific search strategy is shown in Table 1.

2.2. Study Selection

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria of Studies

Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English or Chinese, (2) adult patients diagnosed with any stage of cancer who experienced cancer pain, and (3) the intervention of auricular therapy alone or plus drug therapy. The auricular therapy refers to auricular needle, auricular acupressure, auricular point injection, auricular acupuncture, and auricular point sticking with seed or pellet attachments, while the control group received treatment with drug therapy, or placebo treatment.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria of Studies

Exclusion criteria were (1) no RCTs, (2) case reports, review articles, and animal experiments, and (3) trials that studied pain which cannot be clearly attributed to cancer, for example, trials that involve patients after surgical resection of tumors or other reasons.

Two authors (Yang and Wen) independently screened literatures from databases in this review. Any inconsistency was discussed and resolved with the third author (Hong).

Of the 275 screened literatures, 84 duplicates were removed. And then, case reports, animal experiments, and review articles were excluded by reading titles and abstracts. Finally, inconsistent literatures of intervention and outcome measures were excluded by reading the full texts.

The PRISMA flow chart showed the study selection process in Figure 1.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two authors (Yang and Wen) independently reviewed the studies included. The following data was extracted from the trials using predesigned form: first author name, publication year, sample sizes, characteristics of patients, randomized method, interventions, outcome measures, and adverse events. If the information was incomplete, we tried to contact the author to acquire it.

2.4. Risk of Bias Assessment

The quality of RCTs included was appraised based on guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [20]. The included studies were independently evaluated by two reviewers in terms of seven aspects: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. Each study was scored as low, unclear, or high risk of bias.

2.5. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 of Cochrane Library. was considered statistically significant. Dichotomous data was analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous data was analyzed using a mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. We evaluate heterogeneity depending on both a chi-squared test (Cochrane’s Q statistic) and an I² statistic. If there was substantial heterogeneity among studies, a random-effects model was used. Conversely, a fixed-effects model was used. Continuous data reported using mean and range values was calculated or estimated performing calculations described by Hozo et al. [21] and Luo et al. [22].

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Review

Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Two [23, 24] were published in English, and seven [25–31] were published in Chinese. In the treatment groups, four studies [23, 24, 27, 28] adopted auricular therapy alone; two [23, 24] used auricular acupuncture and two [27, 28] used auricular point sticking, and ear acupoint injection, respectively. And the other five studies [25, 26, 29–31] utilized auricular therapy (including ear acupoint injection, auricular press needle, ear point embedding, and auricular point sticking) plus drug therapy, while, in the control groups, two studies [23, 24] treated participants with sham auricular acupuncture, and the others adopted drug therapy. The characteristics of these studies are presented in Table 2.

3.2. Quality Assessment

Four included RCTs [23, 24, 30, 31] were rated as low risk of bias, which reported adequate methods of random sequence generation, while the others were considered to have an unclear risk of bias due to the lack of any description. Two RCTs [23, 24] that reported allocation concealment were rated as low risk of bias. Seven RCTs [25–31] did not have any described method and so were assessed as unclear risk of allocation concealment. Among the nine RCTs, two were double-blinded [23, 24], while others were not blinded [25–31]. All of the nine RCTs reported all expected outcomes and hence at low risk of bias for selective reporting. Overall, two studies [23, 24] were identified as high quality. Figure 2 and 3 show summaries of the risk of bias.

3.3. Result Analysis

3.3.1. Primary Outcome

(1) Effective Rate for Pain Relief. Six studies [26–31] provided data on the effective rate for pain relief. Four studies [26, 29–31] compared the effects of auricular therapy plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone. Since there was no significant heterogeneity (Chi² = 4.14, , I² = 28%, Figure 4), the statistical analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model. The results detected significant effects of auricular therapy plus drug therapy in reducing cancer pain (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; ). However, a subgroup analysis focused on the other two studies [27, 28] indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; ; Figure 5). The data analysis was represented by a random-effects model due to heterogeneity (Chi² = 12.70, ; I² = 92%).

3.3.2. Secondary Outcome

(1) Pain Score. Alimi et al. [23] and Ruela et al. [24] treated participants by setting up auricular acupuncture group and sham auricular acupuncture group; the pain scores were carried out after treatment. The results indicated that auricular acupuncture could reduce the pain score of cancer patients. And there was a statistical difference (SMD = −1.45; 95% CI −2.80, −0.09; ; Figure 6) between the two groups. We used a random-effects model due to heterogeneity (Chi² = 4.97, ; I² = 80%).

(2) Quality of Life. Among the nine studies, two provided data related to the quality of life [25, 28]. Meta-analysis of the two RCTs demonstrated a significant difference (MD = −5.07; 95% CI −5.93, −4.22; ; Figure 7) between experimental groups compared with control groups on improving the patients’ quality of life, with no heterogeneity (Chi² = 0.67, ; I² = 0%).

(3) Adverse Effects Rate. Of the nine included RCTs, six trials [24–26, 28, 30, 31] assessed adverse effects, while others [23, 27, 29] did not mention any. Ruela et al. [24] reported that there were no adverse reactions in auricular acupuncture. And the other two studies by Shen [28] and Wang et al. [30] were excluded from the analysis due to lack of data. Analysis results of the remaining three studies [25, 26, 31] showed significant advantages of auricular therapy plus drug therapy in reducing adverse effects (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; ; Figure 8). A fixed-effects model was used for statistical analysis because of no significant heterogeneity (Chi² = 1.12, ; I² = 0%).

4. Discussion

The choice of analgesic depends on the severity of the pain; as the pain increases, so does the strength of the recommended analgesic [32]. Continuous administration of the drug itself leads to an attenuation of effect [33]. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new pain-relieving strategies in patients with insufficient pain relief of cancer pain.

This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs involving 783 patients compared the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy and drug therapy or sham auricular therapy for cancer pain.

In this review, three subgroups compared the efficacy of reducing the intensity of cancer pain. First was auricular therapy plus drug therapy versus drug therapy. The results showed auricular therapy plus drug therapy was more effective in relieving pain intensity (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; , Figure 4). Second was auricular acupuncture versus sham auricular acupuncture. Alimi et al. [23] and Ruela et al. [24] demonstrated in their studies that auricular acupuncture was an effective method for mitigating pain. And there was a statistical difference on cancer pain reduction (SMD = −1.45; 95% CI −2.80, −0.09; ; Figure 6). Third was auricular therapy compared with drug therapy. Nevertheless, the result failed to display a significant difference (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; ; Figure 5). All of the studies included in this review reported pain intensity measured by numerical rating scale (NRS) or visual analogue scale (VAS), both on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 reflecting the most serious pain imaginable [34]. The subjectivity and multidimensional nature of the pain experience make the pain assessment have individual differences. In addition, we did not classify the pain of different cancers, which may have biased the results. Therefore, further rigorous trials are needed to confirm our results.

In our review, data of quality of life in posttreatment were pooled from two RCTs. Meta-analysis of the two RCTs [25, 28] demonstrated a significant difference (MD = −5.07; 95% CI −5.93, −4.22; ; Figure 7) between experimental groups compared with control groups. However, only 2 trials were included in the analysis; thus, larger RCTs are needed to verify these findings.

Two experiments [25, 28] reported that auricular therapy can reduce the onset time and increase the maintenance time of analgesia. Three trials [24, 25, 28] mentioned that auricular therapy helps reduce the consumption of analgesics. Due to the lack of data, we did not carry out the comparative analysis.

Our meta-analysis confirmed that auricular therapy was safe, effective, and inexpensive for cancer pain. Not only may auricular therapy have an effect on cancer pain relief, but also it may have other benefits including the potential reduction of analgesics and the benefits of improving the quality of life as well as treatment compliance. The combined use of auricular therapy and drug therapy is significantly superior compared to that of drug therapy. The results will provide some clues for the use of auricular therapy in cancer pain. We propose auricular therapy for cancer pain, when the adverse effects of analgesic are serious or the recommended strength of analgesic cannot effectively relieve the pain. In the future research, we should pay more attention to the standardization of auricular therapy, the selection of acupoints and the treatment course, and follow-up to the long-term effect.

It must be acknowledged that our meta-analysis has several limitations. Firstly, the diversity of auricular therapy might increase the risk of bias. Because the auricular therapy was not consistent across studies, we could not estimate the correlation between the difference of auricular therapy and its therapeutic effectiveness. Secondly, it may cause certain degree of publication bias, because only two of the included studies were published in English and seven were published in Chinese. Thirdly, the sample size of the RCT conducted by Ruela et al. [24] is small, eleven in the experimental group and twelve in the control group, which may lead to statistical bias. Fourthly, the lack of description of the random sequence, blinding, and allocation concealment might have biased the results. Lastly, no studies reported information of follow-up, and therefore, the long-term efficacy remains to be confirmed.

5. Conclusion

Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than the drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations, large, rigor, and high-quality. RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.

Disclosure

Yulan Yang and Jian Wen should be considered co-first authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Authors’ Contributions

YL Yang and J Wen are responsible for the meta-analysis study selecting, data extracting, manuscript writing, and manuscript editing. JY Hong is responsible for the meta-analysis study selecting and manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Yulan Yang and Jian Wen contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by High-Level Hospital Construction Research Project of Maoming People’s Hospital.

References

M. Fallon, R. Giusti, F. Aielli et al., “Management of cancer pain in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 29, pp. 166–191, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Genf, World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief, World Health Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 1986.
M. T. Greco, A. Roberto, O. Corli et al., “Quality of cancer pain management: an update of a systematic review of undertreatment of patients with cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 36, pp. 4149–4154, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Haumann, E. A. Joosten, and M. H. J. v. d. B.-v. Everdingen, “Pain prevalence in cancer patients,” Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 99–104, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Deandrea, M. Montanari, L. Moja, and G. Apolone, “Prevalence of undertreatment in cancer pain. A review of published literature,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1985–1991, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bardia, D. L. Barton, L. J. Prokop, B. A. Bauer, and T. J. Moynihan, “Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain: a systematic review,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 24, no. 34, pp. 5457–5464, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-J. Bao, X.-Y. Kong, L.-P. Yang et al., “Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer pain: an overview of systematic reviews,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2014, Article ID 170396, 9 pages, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
B. J. Horrigan, “New auricular therapy providing pain relief to some patients,” Explore, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 228–231, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X.-X. Ye, Y.-Z. Gao, Z.-B. Xu et al., “Effectiveness of perioperative auricular therapy on postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2019, Article ID 2979780, 9 pages, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
C. H. Yeh, Y. C. Chiang, S. L. Hoffman et al., “Efficacy of auricular therapy for pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2014, Article ID 934670, 14 pages, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
H.-J. Zhao, J.-Y. Tan, T. Wang, and L. Jin, “Auricular therapy for chronic pain management in adults: a synthesis of evidence,” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 68–78, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-W. Hou, H.-C. Hsu, Y.-W. Lin et al., “The history, mechanism, and clinical application of auricular therapy in traditional Chinese medicine,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2015, Article ID 495684, 13 pages, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
C. M. H. Goertz, R. Niemtzow, S. M. Burns, M. J. Fritts, C. C. Crawford, and W. B. Jonas, “Auricular acupuncture in the treatment of acute pain syndromes: a pilot study,” Military Medicine, vol. 171, no. 10, pp. 1010–1014, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Lewis, J. A. Clelland, C. J. Knowles, J. R. Jackson, and A. R. Dimick, “Effects of auricular acupuncture-like transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation on pain levels following wound care in patients with burns: a pilot study,” Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 322–329, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. H. Cha and S. R. Sok, “Effects of auricular acupressure therapy on primary dysmenorrhea for female high school students in South Korea,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 508–516, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-C. Wang, M.-C. Hsu, L.-W. Chien, C.-H. Kao, and C.-F. Liu, “Effects of auricular acupressure on menstrual symptoms and nitric oxide for women with primary dysmenorrhea,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 235–242, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-L. Yeh, Y.-L. Hung, H.-H. Chen, and Y.-J. Wang, “Auricular acupressure for pain relief in adolescents with dysmenorrhea: a placebo-controlled study,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 313–318, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Yeh, W.-C. Lin, L. Kwai-Ping Suen et al., “Auricular point Acupressure to manage aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors: a pilot study,” Oncology Nursing Forum, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 476–487, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Yeh, L.-C. Chien, Y. C. Chiang, D. Ren, and L. K.-P. Suen, “Auricular point acupressure as an adjunct analgesic treatment for cancer patients: a feasibility study,” Pain Management Nursing, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 285–293, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, D. G. Altman, and J. A. C. Sterne, “Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies,” in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0, J. P. T. Higgins, R. Churchill, J. Chandler, and M. S. Cumpston, Eds., Cochrane, London, UK, 2017, http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
View at: Google Scholar
S. P. Hozo, B. Djulbegovic, and I. Hozo, “Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 5, no. 13, p. 13, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Luo, X. Wan, J. Liu, and T. Tong, “Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1785–1805, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Alimi, C. Rubino, E. Pichard-Léandri, S. Fermand-Brulé, M.-L. Dubreuil-Lemaire, and C. Hill, “Analgesic effect of auricular acupuncture for cancer pain: a randomized, blinded, controlled trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 4120–4126, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. O. Ruela, D. H. Iunes, D. A. Nogueira et al., “Effectiveness of auricular acupuncture in the treatment of cancer pain: randomized clinical trial,” Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da US, vol. 52, Article ID e03402, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-S. Chen, W.-L. Feng, B.-Z. Cen et al., “Influence of Standardized nursing of cancer pain coordinated with ear acupoint—injection on quality of life of patients with cancer pain,” CHINESE NURSING RESEARCH, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2608–2610, 2013, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
X.-D. He and S. Chen, “Effect of auricular point sticking combined with morphine in the treatment of terminal care patients with moderate and severe cancer pain,” Chinese Community Doctors, vol. 35, no. 24, p. 90, 2019, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
Y.-M. Jiang, L.-P. Zhang, and M.-R. Lin, “Effect of auricular point sticking therapy on clinical efficacy of cancer pain patients,” Journal of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1961–1966, 2019, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. P. Shen, Clinical Observation and Mechanism Study on the Treatment of Cancer Pain with Ear Acupoints Injection, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China, 2009, in Chinese.
W. Sun and Z.-L. Zhang, “Clinical observation of auricular press-needle combined with western medicine treating cancer pain,” Chinese Manipulation & Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 24-25, 2016, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wang, D. R. Lu, R. Bi et al., “Clinical observation on 30 cases of middle and severe cancer pain of bone metastasis treated by ear point embedding,” Yunnan Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 43–45, 2015, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
Q.-Q. Wang, Y. Chen, L. Zhu et al., “60 cases of cancer pain treated by auricular point sticking combined with morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets,” Journal of External Therapy of TCM, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 18-19, 2016, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
B. M. Scarborough and C. B. Smith, “Optimal pain management for patients with cancer in the modern era,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 182–196, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. I. Cherny, “The management of cancer pain,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 70–116, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Karcioglu, H. Topacoglu, O. Dikme, and O. Dikme, “A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: which to use?” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 707–714, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Yulan Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1866

Downloads

1037

Citations