MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103146910 · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0042-2

The impact of chronic pain on opioid addiction treatment: a systematic review protocol

2015· review· en· W2103146910 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brittany B. Dennis, Monica Bawor, James Paul, Michael Varenbut, Jeff Daiter, Carolyn Plater, Guillaume Paré, David C. Marsh, Andrew Worster, Dipika Desai, Lehana Thabane, Zainab Samaan

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalMcMaster University Medical CentreSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonNOSM UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthPopulation Health Research InstituteNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Centre on Substance Use and AddictionMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBuprenorphineMethadoneChronic painMEDLINEPsycINFOAddictionOpioidSystematic reviewClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The consequences of opioid relapse among patients being treated with opioid substitution treatment (OST) are serious and can result in abnormal cardiovascular function, overdose, and mortality. Chronic pain is a major risk factor for opioid relapse within the addiction treatment setting. There exist a number of opioid maintenance therapies including methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, and levomethadyl acetate (LAAM), of which the mediating effects of pain on treatment attrition, substance use behavior, and social functioning may differ across therapies. We aim to 1) evaluate the impact of pain on the treatment outcomes of addiction patients being managed with OST and 2) identify the most recently published opioid maintenance treatment guidelines from the United States, Canada, and the UK to determine how the evidence is being translated into clinical practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The authors will search Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and theses Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry. We will search www. GUIDELINES: gov and the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) databases to identify the most recently published OST guidelines. All screening and data extraction will be completed in duplicate. Provided the data are suitable, we will perform a multiple treatment comparison using Bayesian meta-analytic methods to produce summary statistics estimating the effect of chronic pain on all OSTs. Our primary outcome is substance use behavior, which includes opioid and non-opioid substance use. We will also evaluate secondary endpoints such as treatment retention, general physical health, intervention adherence, personal and social functioning, as well as psychiatric symptoms. DISCUSSION: This review will capture the experience of treatment outcomes for a sub-population of opioid addiction patients and provide an opportunity to distinguish the best quality guidelines for OST. If chronic pain truly does result in negative consequences for opioid addiction patients, it is important we identify which OSTs are most appropriate for chronic pain patients as well as ensure the treatment guidelines incorporate this information. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014014015 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014014015#.VS1Qw1wkKGM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.017
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.008

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207