Opioids for chronic low-back pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) appears to be increasing. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these medications remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of opioids in adults with chronic LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We electronically searched CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO to May 2006; MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2007. We supplemented our search by reviewing references in relevant systematic reviews and identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials assessing the use of opioids (as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) for longer than four weeks, in adults with chronic LBP. Studies were included if they compared non-injectable opioids to other treatments. Comparisons between opioids were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data onto a pre-designed form. Results were statistically pooled using RevMan 4.2. We reported on pain and function using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and on side effects using absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials. Three compared tramadol to placebo. Pooled results revealed that tramadol was more effective than placebo for pain relief, SMD 0.71 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.02), and improving function, SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.30). The two most common side effects of tramadol were headaches, RD 9% (95% CI 6% to 12%) and nausea, RD 3% (95% CI 0% to 6%). One trial comparing opioids to another analgesic (naproxen) found opioids were statistically significant for relieving pain but not improving function. When re-calculated, the results were not statistically significant for either pain relief (SMD -0.58; 95% CI -1.42 to 0.26) or improving function (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.76) . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns surrounding the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic LBP, there remain few high-quality trials assessing their efficacy. The trials in this review, although achieving high internal validity scores, were characterized by a lack of generalizability, inadequate description of study populations, poor intention-to treat analysis, and limited interpretation of functional improvement. Based on our results, the benefits of opioids in clinical practice for the long-term management of chronic LBP remains questionable. Therefore, further high-quality studies that more closely simulate clinical practice are needed to assess the usefulness, and potential risks, of opioids for individuals with chronic LBP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,063 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,029 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,030 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».