Hypogonadism associated with long-term opioid therapy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction and Opioid-Induced Sexual Hormone Deficiency (OPISHD) have been associated with patients on long-term opioid pain therapy. There have been few comprehensive reviews to establish a relation between hypogonadism with chronic opioid pain management. The OPISHD is often not treated and literature guiding this topic is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate hypogonadism associated with long-term opioid therapy based on qualitative data analysis of the available literature. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS: The review included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, and EMBASE, for the years 1960 to September 2013. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria used were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group Criteria for randomized control trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and poor, based on the quality of evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were clinical symptoms and laboratory markers of hypogonadism. Secondary outcome measure was management of OPISHD. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were identified, of which 14 studies met inclusion criteria. There were no randomized control trials and eight of 14 studies were of moderate quality. The remaining studies were of poor quality. Four studies report most patients on long-term oral opioid therapy have associated hypogonadism and three studies of patients receiving intrathecal opioid therapy suggest that hypogonadism is common. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of high-quality studies to associate chronic opioid pain management with hypogonadism. At present, there is fair evidence to associate hypogonadism with chronic opioid pain management, and only limited evidence for treatment of OPISHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".