MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018425341 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000248

Accuracy of Self-reported Prescribed Analgesic Medication Use

2015· article· en· W2018425341 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anaïs Lacasse, Mark A. Ware, Patricia Bourgault, Hélène Lanctôt, Marc Dorais, Christian Cloutier, Yoram Shir, Manon Choinière

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionAnalgesicConfidence intervalLinkage (software)PharmacoepidemiologyInformed consentPopulationFamily medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The validity of studies conducted with patient registries depends on the accuracy of the self-reported clinical data. As of now, studies about the validity of self-reported use of analgesics among chronic pain (CP) populations are scarce. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of self-reported prescribed analgesic medication use. This was attained by comparing the data collected in the Quebec Pain Registry (QPR) database to those contained in the Quebec administrative prescription claims database (Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec [RAMQ]). METHODS: To achieve the linkage between the QPR and the RAMQ databases, the first 1285 patients who were consecutively enrolled in the QPR between October 31, 2008 and January 27, 2010 were contacted by mail and invited to participate in a study in which they had to provide their unique RAMQ health insurance number. Using RAMQ prescription claims as the reference standard, κ coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each therapeutic class of prescribed analgesic drugs that the participants reported taking currently and in the past 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 569 QPR patients responded to the postal mailing, provided their unique health insurance number, and gave informed consent for the linkage (response proportion=44%). Complete RAMQ prescription claims over the 12 months before patient enrollment into the QPR were available for 272 patients, who constituted our validated study population. Regarding current self-reported prescribed analgesic use, κ coefficients measuring agreement between the 2 sources of information ranged from 0.66 to 0.78 for COX-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, synthetic cannabinoids, opiate agonists/partial agonists/antagonists, and antimigraine agents therapeutic classes. For the past 12-month self-reported prescribed analgesic use, QPR patients were less accurate regarding anticonvulsants (κ=0.59), opiate agonists/partial agonists/antagonists (κ=0.57), and antimigraine agents use (κ=0.39). DISCUSSION: Information about current prescribed analgesic medication use as reported by CP patients was accurate for the main therapeutic drug classes used in CP management. Accuracy of the past year self-reported prescribed analgesic use was somewhat lower but only for certain classes of medication, the concordance being good on all the others.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207