Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Subject Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Subject Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Epidemiology and Outcomes
You have accessRestricted Access

Efficacy of the World Health Organization Analgesic Ladder to Treat Pain in End-Stage Renal Disease

Ahmad S. Barakzoy and Alvin H. Moss
JASN November 2006, 17 (11) 3198-3203; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006050477
Ahmad S. Barakzoy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alvin H. Moss
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Pain is the one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with ESRD; it impairs their quality of life and is undertreated. Most pain clinicians believe that the pain management approach of the World Health Organization (WHO) three-step analgesic ladder is applicable to the treatment of patients with ESRD, but this approach has not been validated for them. A cohort of 45 hemodialysis patients were assessed for type and severity of pain using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and then treated during a 4-wk period according to the WHO analgesic ladder. Mean age was 65 ± 12.5 yr, and 22 (49%) patients had diabetic nephropathy as the cause of ESRD. Initial pain was rated severe by 34 (76%) patients. There was no difference in initial pain rating by gender, age, race, or type of pain. Forty percent of patients reported nociceptive pain, 31% neuropathic, and 29% both. Adequate analgesia was achieved in 43 (96%) of 45 patients. The mean pain score decreased from 7.8 ± 1.2 to 1.6 ± 1.3 (P < 0.001). Patients who were 65 yr and older had higher posttreatment scores than those who were younger than 65 (2.1 ± 1.4 versus 0.94 ± 0.93; P = 0.002) and more medication adverse effects. It is concluded that the use of the WHO three-step analgesic ladder leads to effective pain relief in hemodialysis patients. Older patients will need more careful pain management to achieve the same results as younger patients. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in a larger, more diverse dialysis population.

Pain has become an important concern for those who treat patients with ESRD. There is an increasing recognition that pain is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with ESRD, that it impairs their quality of life, and that it is undertreated (1–8). Most pain clinicians believe that the principles of cancer pain management as described in the American Pain Society primer (9) and the World Health Organization (WHO) monograph (10) are applicable to the treatment of patients who have ESRD and are in pain. The approach of using the WHO analgesic ladder to treat patients who have ESRD and are in pain has been recommended in two review articles in the nephrology literature (11,12), but it has not been validated prospectively. For this reason, we conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of using the WHO three-step analgesic ladder to treat pain in patients with ESRD.

Materials and Methods

Study Population

We conducted a prospective cohort study of hemodialysis patients who were receiving standard care for pain and other symptoms between March and May 2005 in two dialysis units under the medical directorship of the West Virginia University School of Medicine Section of Nephrology. To be eligible to participate in the study, patients had to be older than 18 yr, possess decision-making capacity, have no history of drug abuse and could not have been receiving continuous treatment for chronic pain so that the effect of the treatment intervention could be assessed. All dialysis patients in the two dialysis units who met these inclusion criteria were approached for participation. From those who agreed to participate, we identified patients who were in pain and were willing to undergo assessment and treatment by the study investigators. Patients who completed the pre- and posttreatment evaluation compose the subjects of this study. This study was approved by the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Baseline Characteristics and Instrument for Pain Assessment

Patients’ charts were reviewed for demographic data (age, gender, and race), dialysis adequacy, allergies, current medications, drug history, comorbidity, and liver function. We interviewed those who agreed to participate in the study to identify patients who were in pain and willing to undergo treatment, and one of the investigators (A.S.B.) administered the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) to them. This questionnaire was validated previously in patients with cancer, postsurgical, obstetric, and musculoskeletal pain (13,14). The original and longer version of the SF-MPQ, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, has been used successfully in the assessment of patients with ESRD (1). The SF-MPQ consists of 15 descriptors of pain (11 sensory and four affective) that are rated on an intensity scale as 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, or 3 = severe. Three pain scores are derived from the sum of the intensity values of the words chosen for sensory, affective, and total descriptors. In addition, the SF-MPQ includes a present pain intensity visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 through 10) and an evaluative overall intensity of the total pain experience (0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = discomforting pain, 3 = distressing pain, 4 = horrible pain, and 5 = excruciating pain). The three pain descriptors are added to the VAS and the evaluative overall intensity to obtain a total score for the SF-MPQ. Patients who selected the sensory descriptors of “burning” and “stabbing” were classified as having neuropathic pain. Patients who selected the sensory descriptors of “aching,” “cramping,” “gnawing,” “sharp,” “throbbing,” and “tender” were classified as having nociceptive pain (15).

Pain Treatment Approach

Pain medications were prescribed according to the WHO three-step analgesic ladder (Figure 1) (10). In previous studies, the use of the WHO three-step analgesic ladder to treat pain has resulted in adequate analgesia in between 69 and 100% of patients (16) and now is recognized as global health policy and one of the major advances in the treatment of patients with pain (17,18). Using the VAS in the SF-MPQ, patients rated their pain on a scale from 0 = no pain to 10 = the worst pain possible. Patients who described their pain as nociceptive and rated their pain between 1 and 4 were considered to have mild pain and were prescribed medications in step 1 of the ladder. Patients who described their pain as nociceptive and rated their pain 5 or 6 were considered to have moderate pain and were prescribed medications in step 2 of the ladder. Patients who described their pain as nociceptive and rated their pain as 7 to 10 were considered to have severe pain and were prescribed medications in step 3 of the ladder. Patients who described their pain as neuropathic were prescribed gabapentin or, when cost of medication was an issue, nortriptyline. Patients were seen weekly for 4 wk, and on subsequent visits, medication dosages were increased or medications were changed or added until the patients reported a pain score of <5 and satisfaction with their degree of pain relief. Patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain despite the prescription and titration of gabapentin or nortriptyline had an opioid added. The approach for pain management in this study was similar to that described in Davison’s review of recommended treatment of chronic pain in patients with ESRD (12). Patients were considered to have achieved adequate analgesia when they rated their posttreatment pain as mild or none. At the completion of the treatment period, patients were readministered the SF-MPQ. In this study, pain medications for treatment of patients who had moderate (step 2) and severe pain (step 3) were chosen on the basis of the pharmacokinetics of opioids and their metabolites to ensure use of opioids with a reasonable safety profile in ESRD (11,19).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder modified to exclude drugs unsafe in renal failure. Patients were treated with medications in step 1 when they rated their pain as a 1 to 4 on a 10-point scale. Patients were treated with medications in step 2 when they rated their pain as a 5 or 6 on a 10-point scale. Patients were treated with medications in step 3 when they rated their pain as a 7 to 10 on a 10-point scale.

Statistical Analyses

Patients’ initial and posttreatment VAS pain scores were compared for the entire population, gender, age (<65 versus ≥65 yr), and race (white versus black) and for patients who reported their pain as nociceptive or neuropathic. Patients’ initial and posttreatment total SF-MPQ scores were compared for the entire population. A t test was used for paired and independent samples for continuous variables. Data are presented as means ± SD. P < 0.05 is considered significant.

Results

A total of 143 patients met inclusion criteria; of these, 78 (54%) reported pain. Of the 78 patients, 17 refused to participate in the study because of concerns about medication costs or adverse effects; of these 17, eight reported moderate pain and nine reported mild pain. Sixteen patients who were in pain and already regularly taking pain medicines were excluded because it would not be possible to assess the impact of the WHO analgesic ladder approach in them. Forty-five agreed to participate in the study (Figure 2). Mean age for these patients was 65 ± 12.5 yr. Fifty-three percent were men; 83% were white, and 17% were black. Twenty-two (49%) patients had diabetic nephropathy as the cause of their ESRD. The mean dialysis Kt/V for the 45 patients was 1.56 ± 0.28.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Study participants. A total of 143 of 172 potentially eligible hemodialysis patients met inclusion criteria: 78 (54%) patients reported pain; 45 (58% of the patients in pain) agreed to participate in the study.

Of the 62 patients who were in pain and not already regularly taking pain medicine, 53 (86%) reported pain that was moderate or severe. Of the 45 patients in the study, initial pain was rated severe by 34 (76%) patients. There was no difference in initial pain rating by gender, age, race, or type of pain (nociceptive or neuropathic; Figures 3 and 4). Forty percent of patients reported nociceptive pain, 31% neuropathic, and 29% both. Burning was the most frequent descriptor used by patients to report their pain; 25 patients selected it. Twelve patients reported aching pain; 10 sharp pain; five stabbing; four throbbing; and two each cramping, gnawing, and tender. The following descriptors in the SF-MPQ were not selected by any patients: Shooting, heavy, splitting, tiring, sickening, fearful, and punishing.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Mean pretreatment pain score by gender, age, and race. Mean pretreatment scores for all groups were in the severe range (7.4 to 8.0). There was no difference in mean pretreatment pain score on the basis of gender, age, or race. The bars depict mean score ± 1 SD.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Mean pre- and posttreatment pain scores by type of pain. Mean pretreatment scores for patients who reported neuropathic and nociceptive pain both were in the severe range (8.1 ± 1.2 versus 7.4 ± 1.2; P = 0.11). There was comparable reduction in pain scores for both groups to the mild range (1.5 ± 1.1 versus 1.8 ± 1.5, P = 0.524). The bars depict mean score ± 1 SD.

Adequate analgesia was achieved in 43 (96%) of 45 patients. The mean pain score decreased from 7.8 ± 1.2 to 1.6 ± 1.3 (P < 0.001). The two patients in whom adequate analgesia was not obtained were 68 and 74 yr of age. On the overall intensity of the pain experience rating completed at the end of the study, 11 (24%) patients indicated no pain, 32 (71%) patients indicated mild pain, and two (4%) patients indicated discomforting pain (moderate level). No patients reported pain that was distressing, horrible, or excruciating. Comparable pain relief was achieved for patients with nociceptive and neuropathic pain (Figure 4). Patients who were 65 yr and older had higher posttreatment pain scores than those who were younger than 65 yr (Figure 5). The total SF-MPQ score was reduced from 17.3 ± 3.8 to 4.3 ± 3.0 (P < 0.001). The percentages of patients who were treated with particular pain medications were as follows (the numbers do not add up to 100% because 24% of patients were prescribed more than one pain medication): Gabapentin, 38%; hydrocodone, 27%; tramadol, 24%; oxycodone, 20%; nortriptyline, 16%, and propoxyphene, 2%. The use of propoxyphene in kidney disease is not recommended (11); this patient had previously used propoxyphene safely and requested it again. Opioid neurotoxicity was not noted during the study. Adverse effects were observed in three patients, all of whom were older than 65 yr. In two patients, the dosage of gabapentin was reduced from 300 mg at bedtime to 100 mg because of “grogginess” and somnolence. One elderly patient was switched from an oxycodone-acetaminophen combination to tramadol because of dizziness.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Response to pain treatment by age. Both age groups had reduction of their mean pain scores from the severe to the mild range. Patients who were younger than 65 yr had a significantly lower posttreatment pain score than those who were 65 yr and older (0.94 ± 0.93 versus 2.1 ± 1.4, P = 0.003). The bars depict mean score ± 1 SD.

A formal assessment of the impact of pain treatment on patients’ quality of life was not conducted, but 22 patients made unsolicited comments. The comments were analyzed and coded into three general domains: More restful sleep, improved function, and better ability to tolerate dialysis. Representative comments were as follows: “I have more energy because I am resting better at night”; “I am able to walk to my mail box, something I could not do before because of hip and leg pain”; and, “I am able to tolerate 4 hr of dialysis without the severe back pain.”

Discussion

This study has four major findings. First, use of the WHO three-step analgesic ladder approach to treating pain led to effective pain treatment in >90% of our hemodialysis patients. Second, we note that treatment of pain is more difficult in elderly dialysis patients. Third, we confirm the high prevalence of pain in the hemodialysis population and undertreatment of pain in the majority of dialysis patients. Fourth, the SF-MPQ was a useful and efficient tool to assess pain in hemodialysis patients.

With the WHO analgesic ladder approach, 96% of our patients were treated adequately on the basis of their posttreatment report of pain. At the conclusion of our study, 43 (96%) of 45 patients reported mild pain at worst, and two reported moderate pain. No patients reported severe pain. These findings indicate that use of the WHO three-step analgesic ladder results in effective pain relief in the vast majority of dialysis patients; these outcomes in dialysis patient pain management are comparable to those for cancer patients and patients with other chronic illnesses (16).

Although elderly patients reported reduction in their pain after treatment to the mild range, their mean pain level at the end of the study was statistically higher than for younger patients; the clinical significance of this finding bears further research. The only two patients who reported more than mild pain at the conclusion of the study both were older than 65 yr. Also, adverse effects from pain medication occurred only in elderly patients. These findings underscore that pain treatment is more difficult in elderly hemodialysis patients as it is in other elderly patient populations (20).

In our study, we identified pain in 54% of dialysis patients. Similarly, in the most comprehensive study of pain in dialysis patients to date, Davison (1) found that 103 (50%) of 205 patients in four Canadian hemodialysis units reported pain. In the Davison study, musculoskeletal pain was the most common type of pain reported (63% of patients), followed by pain related to the dialysis procedure (14%) and peripheral neuropathy (13%). As in our study, in Davison’s study, nociceptive pain was equally severe to neuropathic and responded equally well to treatment.

Our patients were receiving standard care at the time of this study, but only 21% of the patients whom we identified to be in pain were receiving pain medication at the start of our study. Davison’s study found undertreatment of pain in 75% of patients (1). Of the 62 patients who were in pain and not receiving pain medication at the initiation of our study, >80% rated their pain as moderate or severe. Clearly, these patients were being undertreated for pain. How can we account for the widespread prevalence of untreated pain in our population, especially because before our study, the patients were being seen weekly by a nephrologist or a nephrology nurse practitioner? The answer relates to how pain is assessed. Unless our patients were asked explicitly about their pain, they did not report it. This finding is true for other patient populations as well (21,22). The implication of this finding is that for dialysis patients to receive adequate treatment for their pain, an explicit pain assessment must be part of the treatment that they receive.

Our finding of the undertreatment of pain in the hemodialysis population has significance for the quality of life of patients with ESRD. Pain may induce depression, anxiety, insomnia, and decreased functional capacity and interfere with the ability to interact socially (2,6,23). An inverse relationship between the existence of pain and other symptoms and dialysis patients’ self-reported quality of life has been reported (2,4).

The SF-MPQ was used in this study. It took only 5 to 10 min to administer, and its use for pain assessment resulted in adequate pain management in 96% of hemodialysis patients. Our patients selected none of the four affective descriptors of pain in the SF-MPQ and only eight of the 11 sensory descriptors. The VAS results were validated by the overall intensity of total pain experience ratings. If our findings are confirmed in other studies of dialysis patients, then it may be possible to construct an even shorter pain assessment form that could be used conveniently once a month in dialysis units.

This study has six limitations. First, the racial distribution of the patients in this study underrepresents minorities because of the homogeneity of the population in West Virginia. Although there was no difference in initial pain rating or response to pain management by race, further studies will be needed to establish the generalizability of our findings. Second, this was a short-term study of only 4 wk; however, the average duration of pain treatment in some of the original WHO validation studies was only 66 to 77 d (24,25). The long-term efficacy of the WHO analgesic ladder approach in ESRD as well as the development of tolerance and adverse effects over time remain to be studied. Third, this study contains a small sample size, but, again, many of the original WHO validation studies had fewer than 100 patients (13). Fourth, this study did not measure formally the impact of the pain reduction on patients’ quality of life. Fifth, our population included only hemodialysis patients; a study on the efficacy of using the WHO three-step analgesic ladder in peritoneal dialysis patients remains to be performed. Sixth, our study used the SF-MPQ, the use of which has not been validated in an ESRD population; the use of the longer version, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, has been.

Conclusion

Use of the SF-MPQ for pain assessment and the WHO three-step analgesic ladder approach for pain management in hemodialysis patients led to effective pain relief in 96% of patients. Because older patients had higher posttreatment pain scores and adverse effects from treatment, they will need more careful management to achieve the same results as younger patients. Longer term studies will be needed to confirm these results in a larger, more diverse dialysis population.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Mei-Ying Huang Research and Education Fund of the West Virginia University Center for Health Ethics and Law.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • © 2006 American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    Davison SN: Pain in hemodialysis patients: Prevalence, cause, severity, and management. Am J Kidney Dis 42 : 1239 –1247, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Weisbord SD, Fried LF, Arnold RM, Fine MJ, Leveson DJ, Peterson RA, Switzer GE: Prevalence, severity, importance of physical and emotional symptoms in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 16 : 2487 –2494, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. Baile GR, Mason NA, Bragg-Gresham JL, Gillespie BW, Young EW: Analgesic prescription patterns among hemodialysis patients in the DOPPS: Potential for underprescription. Kidney Int 65 : 2419 –2425, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Kimmel PL, Emont SL, Newmann JM, Danko H, Moss AH: ESRD patient quality of life: Symptoms, spiritual beliefs, psychosocial factors, and ethnicity. Am J Kidney Dis 42 : 713 –721, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. Moss AH, Holley JL, Davison SN, Dart RA, Germain MJ, Cohen L, Swartz RD: Core curriculum in nephrology: Palliative care. Am J Kidney Dis 43 : 1720185 , 2004
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Davison SN, Jhangri GS: The impact of chronic pain on depression, sleep, and the desire to withdrawal from dialysis in hemodialysis patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 30 : 465 –473, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. Cohen LM, Germain MJ, Woods AL, Mirot A, Burleson JA: The family perspective of ESRD deaths. Am J Kidney Dis 45 : 154 –161, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Moss AH: Improving end-of-life care for dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 45 : 209 –212, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    American Pain Society: Principles of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain, 5th Ed., Glenview, IL, American Pain Society, 2003
  10. ↵
    World Health Organization: Cancer Pain Relief and Palliative Care: Report of a WHO Expert Committee, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1990 , pp 7 –21
  11. ↵
    Kurella M, Bennett WM, Chertow GM: Analgesia in patients with ESRD: A review of available evidence. Am J Kidney Dis 42 : 217 –228, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Davison SN: Chronic pain in end-stage renal disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 12 : 326 –334, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Melzack R: The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 30 : 191 –197, 1987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Grafton KV, Foster NE, Wright CC: Test-retest reliability of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire: Assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin J Pain 21 : 73 –82, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Max MB, Portenoy RK: Clinical trials of treatments for pain. In: Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd Ed., edited by Doyle D, Hanks G, Cherny NI, Calman K, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004 , pp 149 –151
  16. ↵
    Jadad AR, Browman GP: The WHO analgesic ladder for cancer pain management: Stepping up the quality of its evaluation. JAMA 274 : 1870 –1873, 1995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Meldrum M: The ladder and the clock: Cancer pain and public policy at the end of the twentieth century. J Pain Symptom Manage 29 : 41 –54, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Davis MP: Controversies in pharmacotherapy of pain management. Lancet Oncol 6 : 696 –704, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Dean M: Opioids in renal failure and dialysis patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 28 : 497 –504, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    American Geriatrics Society Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons: The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 50[Suppl 6] : S205 –S224, 2002
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Module 4: Pain management. In: The EPEC Project. Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care, Chicago, American Medical Association, 1999 , pp M4-1 –M4-33
  22. ↵
    Jones KR, Fink RM, Clark L, Hutt E, Vojir CP, Mellis BK: Nursing home resident barriers to effective pain management: Why nursing home residents may not seek pain medication. J Am Med Dir Assoc 6 : 10 –17, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Ingham JM, Portenoy RK: The measurement of pain and other symptoms. In: Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd Ed., edited by Doyle D, Hanks G, Cherny N, Calman K, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004 , pp 167 –184
  24. ↵
    Ventafridda V, Tamburini M, Caraceni A, de Conno F, Naldi F: A validation study of the WHO method for cancer pain relief. Cancer 59 : 850 –856, 1987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Zech DFJ, Grond S, Lynch J, Hertel D, Lehmann KA: Validation of World Health Organization guidelines for cancer pain relief: A 10-year prospective study. Pain 63 : 65 –76, 1995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 17 (11)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 17, Issue 11
November 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficacy of the World Health Organization Analgesic Ladder to Treat Pain in End-Stage Renal Disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Efficacy of the World Health Organization Analgesic Ladder to Treat Pain in End-Stage Renal Disease
Ahmad S. Barakzoy, Alvin H. Moss
JASN Nov 2006, 17 (11) 3198-3203; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006050477

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Efficacy of the World Health Organization Analgesic Ladder to Treat Pain in End-Stage Renal Disease
Ahmad S. Barakzoy, Alvin H. Moss
JASN Nov 2006, 17 (11) 3198-3203; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006050477
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Survival among Patients with Kidney Failure in Jalisco, Mexico
  • A Population-Based, Prospective Study of Blood Pressure and Risk for End-Stage Renal Disease in China
  • Hepatitis C Virus and Death Risk in Hemodialysis Patients
Show more Epidemiology and Outcomes

Cited By...

  • Can NSAIDs Be Used Safely for Analgesia in Patients with CKD?: PRO
  • Pain Management in a Patient with Kidney Failure
  • Associations of Opioid Prescriptions with Death and Hospitalization across the Spectrum of Estimated GFR
  • Clinical Pharmacology Considerations in Pain Management in Patients with Advanced Kidney Failure
  • Opioid Analgesics and Adverse Outcomes among Hemodialysis Patients
  • Opioid Prescription, Morbidity, and Mortality in United States Dialysis Patients
  • Prescription Opioids for Pain Management in Patients on Dialysis
  • Acceptance of Antidepressant Treatment by Patients on Hemodialysis and Their Renal Providers
  • How the ESRD Quality Incentive Program Could Potentially Improve Quality of Life for Patients on Dialysis
  • Associations of Depressive Symptoms and Pain with Dialysis Adherence, Health Resource Utilization, and Mortality in Patients Receiving Chronic Hemodialysis
  • Managing pain in advanced illness
  • Sexual Function, Activity, and Satisfaction among Women Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis
  • Dying on Dialysis: The Case for a Dignified Withdrawal
  • Comparison of Symptom Management Strategies for Pain, Erectile Dysfunction, and Depression in Patients Receiving Chronic Hemodialysis: A Cluster Randomized Effectiveness Trial
  • Improving Symptoms of Pain, Erectile Dysfunction, and Depression in Patients on Dialysis
  • The Ethics of End-of-Life Care for Patients with ESRD
  • Opioid and Benzodiazepine Use in End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review
  • Calcium, Parathyroid Hormone, and Vitamin D: Major Determinants of Chronic Pain in Hemodialysis Patients
  • Changing practice to improve pain control for renal patients
  • Utility of the "Surprise" Question to Identify Dialysis Patients with High Mortality
  • Renal Provider Recognition of Symptoms in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis
  • Pain, Sleep Disturbance, and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire