Review: intravenous and oral opioids reduce chronic non-cancer pain but are associated with high rates of constipation, nausea, and sleepiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kalso E, Edwards JE, Moore RA, et al . Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety. Pain 2004;112:372–80.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Are opioids effective and safe for reducing chronic non-cancer pain? ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: Medline (1966 to September 2003), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980 to September 2003), Cochrane Library (September 2003), Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950–94); and hand searches of reference lists. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: double blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared oral, transdermal, or intravenous (IV) World Health Organisation (WHO) step 3 opioids with placebo; included >10 adults/group; and reported pain intensity outcomes assessed using a visual analogue scale, a 0–10 numerical rating scale, or a 4 point categorical scale. Study quality was assessed using the 3 item Jadad scale and a 5 item validity scale. ### ![Graphic][7] Outcomes: pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes were mood, functional status, quality of life (QOL), and adverse … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPain%26rft.stitle%253DPain%26rft.aulast%253DKalso%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%26rft.volume%253D112%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D372%26rft.epage%253D380%26rft.atitle%253DOpioids%2Bin%2Bchronic%2Bnon-cancer%2Bpain%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%2Bof%2Befficacy%2Band%2Bsafety.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.pain.2004.09.019%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15561393%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.019&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15561393&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F88.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000225601500018&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".