Intravenous nonopioid analgesic drugs in chronic low back pain patients on chronic opioid treatment
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addition of nonopioid analgesic drugs reduces pain and opioid requirements in acute low back pain. In noncancer chronic low back pain (CLBP), the efficacy of a combined regimen to reduce breakthrough pain has not been proven so far. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the effects of intravenous (i.v.) nonopioid analgesic drugs on pain intensity and lumbar mobility in CLBP patients on chronic opioid therapy. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double blinded, crossover study. SETTING: Vienna General Hospital, Austria, from December 2002 to May 2004. PATIENTS: Thirty-six adults with CLBP on chronic opioid therapy. Inclusion criteria are as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status less than 3, visual analogue scale (VAS) more than 4 and no known allergy to any of the used drugs. INTERVENTION: After written informed consent and VAS assessment, any oral nonopioid analgesic drug (NSAIDs, metamizol, paracetamol) was replaced by placebo 10 days before the first test infusion as a washout period. Coanalgesics (anticonvulsants, antidepressants) were maintained. Each patient received randomly four i.v. test infusions of diclofenac 75 mg (and orphenadrine 30 mg), parecoxib 40 mg, paracetamol 1 g and isotonic saline. A washout time of 72 h was allowed between each infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was as follows: VAS pain intensity (0 to 100 mm) at inclusion, before and within 30 min after infusion. Secondary outcomes were as follows: Roland-Morris questionnaire, McGill pain questionnaire and a test panel of physical functioning for spinal mobility, muscular endurance, balance and coordination. The differences in means of the above assessments among the groups were analysed. RESULTS: We found an improvement in VAS from the day of inclusion to the day of each appointment. We observed no improvement in pain intensity (VAS) or in any of the physical functioning tests immediately before versus after administration of the four i.v. drugs. Reductions in sensory, affective and cognitive dimensions of the McGill pain questionnaire were statistically significant in the diclofenac group. A trend of McGill pain questionnaire improvement existed in the other groups. CONCLUSION: The present data show that the anticipation of an i.v. infusion of nonopioid analgesic drug improves VAS significantly, probably through expectation-related mechanisms. However, single dose i.v. infusions of nonopioid analgesic drugs fail to improve pain intensity and spinal mobility in CLBP patients on chronic opioid treatment, even immediately after the infusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".