MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092587165 · doi:10.1016/j.sjpain.2011.11.001

Chronic non-cancer pain and the long-term efficacy and safety of opioids: Some blind men and an elephant?

2012· article· en· W2092587165 on OpenAlex
Nina Watson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Pain · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrief Pain InventoryMoodQuality of life (healthcare)Cancer painOpioidChronic painAdverse effectAnxietyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAddictionPsychiatryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains very controversial. There are a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing efficacy and safety in the short-term, but long-term data are limited. Methods This article contains 10 case reports (followed to 2011) that were selected from a survey of 84 patients with intractable CNCP treated with opioids and followed every 3 months now for a median of 10 years. The previous published survey of this group reported outcomes of pain severity, adverse effects, pain relief, satisfaction, mood, problematic opioid use, tolerance, physical dependency, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQL), immune status and sexual function. The outcome measures for that study included a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale (BPI-I), the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and for Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) the Short Form Health Survey 12 version 2 (SF12v2). These selected patient reports were chosen to illustrate some important aspects of the diagnostic categories of CNCP, the opioids and doses used, particular issues (concurrent addiction history, bipolar disorder, and combination therapy), disease-specific and other outcomes (pain severity and relief, adverse effects, mood, function) and duration of follow-up with complex pain problems. Results Opioids were found to be safe and effective in the long-term for these particular patients, as well as in the larger group from which they originate. Most patients in the total sample reported 50% or greater relief and a moderate improvement in disability. Scores for functional status and HRQL were not severely affected (PDI and BPI-I ratings moderate or less and SF12v2 slightly below normative values for age). Problematic use, tolerance, and serious adverse effects including constipation were not major issues. Conclusion These 10 reports of patients with intractable CNCP treated with opioids with some success over many years put a face on some of the participants in the larger survey of 84 suggesting that this approach is effective and safe for some patients over many years. Implications These data may not be generalizable to a larger population of patients with CNCP because of the probable selection of patients who benefit and who do not have intolerable adverse effects.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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