Opioids for managing chronic non-malignant pain: safe and effective prescribing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on safe and effective prescribing of opioids for chronic non-malignant pain. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched using the terms "opioid effectiveness" and "adverse effects." There is strong evidence that opioids are effective for both nociceptive and neuropathic pain, but limited evidence that they are effective for pain disorder. There is little information on their effectiveness at high doses or on the adverse effects of high doses. MAIN MESSAGE: Opioids should be initiated after an adequate trial of acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for nociceptive pain and of tricyclic antidepressants or anticonvulsants for neuropathic pain. Patients should be asked to sign treatment agreements and to give informed consent to treatment. Patients should experience a graded analgesic response with each dose increase. Titrate doses of immediate-release opioids slowly upward until pain reduction is achieved, and then switch patients to controlled-release opioids. Most patients with chronic non-malignant pain can be managed with<300 mg/d of morphine (or equivalent). CONCLUSION: Opioids are safe and effective for managing chronic pain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".