MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104644133 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-66

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2013· review· en· W2104644133 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason W. Busse, Stefan Schandelmaier, Mostafa Kamaleldin, Sandy Hsu, John J. Riva, Per Olav Vandvik, Ludwig Tsoi, Tommy Lam, Shanil Ebrahim, Bradley C. Johnston, Lori Oliveri, Luis Montoya, Regina Kunz, Anna Malandrino, Neera Bhatnagar, Sohail Mulla, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Charlene Soobiah, Anthony Wong, Norman Buckley, Daniel I. Sessler, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNCMIC Foundation
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialMeta-analysisSystematic reviewInterpretabilityMEDLINEAdverse effectChronic painGrading (engineering)Cancer painClinical trialOpioidEvidence-based medicineIntensive care medicineAlternative medicinePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events. METHODS AND DESIGN: Eligible trials will include those that randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with any opioid or any non-opioid control group. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate confidence in the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. To ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for all outcomes reported and these will be based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences, when available. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses consistent with current best practices. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with opioid use for CNCP, evaluate confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with CNCP and identify key areas for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42012003023), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

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)0.158
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.201
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1580.201
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.022
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.014

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207