MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W167423032

Efficacy of tramadol in treatment of chronic low back pain.

2000· article· en· W167423032 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTramadolMedicineDiscontinuationPlaceboAdverse effectAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialAnalgesicInternal medicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: A 3 phase trial: (1) a washout/screening phase; (2) a 3 week, open label, run-in phase; and (3) a 4 week, randomized, placebo controlled, double blind treatment phase. Three hundred eighty outpatients between 21 and 79 years with chronic low back pain with no or a distant history of back surgery enrolled in the open label phase and were treated with tramadol up to 400 mg/day. At the end of the open label phase, patients who tolerated tramadol and perceived benefit from it were randomized to continue treatment with tramadol or to convert to placebo in the double blind phase. Reasons for discontinuing from the open label phase included adverse events, 78 patients (20.5%); drug ineffective, 23 patients (6.1%); and other reasons, 25 patients (6.6%). Two hundred fifty-four patients entered the double blind phase, during which the daily dose was maintained within the range 200-400 mg tramadol or equivalent amount of placebo. The primary outcome measure in the double blind phase was the time to discontinuation due to inadequate pain relief. RESULTS: The distribution of time to therapeutic failure was significantly (p < or = 0.0001) different in the tramadol group compared to placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimate of the cumulative discontinuation rate due to therapeutic failure was 20.7% in the tramadol group and 51.3% in the placebo group. There were significantly lower (p < or = 0.0001) mean pain visual analog scores (10 cm scale) among tramadol patients (3.5 cm) compared to placebo patients (5.1 cm) at the final visit of the double blind phase. Tramadol patients scored significantly better on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (p = 0.0007) and the Roland Disability Questionnaire (p = 0.0001). Five of 127 tramadol treated patients and 6/127 placebo treated patients discontinued treatment during the double blind phase due to an adverse event. Commonly reported adverse events with tramadol included nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache. CONCLUSION: Among patients who tolerated it well, tramadol was effective for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it