MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810409681 · doi:10.1097/bco.0000000000000632

First Place: A prospective, randomized controlled trial of the impact of written discharge instructions for postoperative opioids on patient pain satisfaction and on minimizing opioid risk exposure in orthopaedic surgery

2018· article· en· W2810409681 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCurrent Orthopaedic Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialPatient satisfactionOpioidNarcoticPhysical therapyProspective cohort studyAnesthesiaChronic painSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prescription opioid misuse is a significant issue with multiple consequences for our patients and society. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of a postoperative pain guideline pamphlet on patient pain satisfaction, on number of patients seeking a renewal prescription, and on appropriate disposal of leftover prescription medication. Methods: This prospective, randomized controlled trial included patients aged 18 to 65 yr undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery, who were opioid naïve and had no preexisting chronic pain conditions. Patients consenting to participate were divided into low-, medium-, and high-use groups according to anticipated postoperative prescription narcotic usage. Patients in each group were randomized to the control group that received no written discharge instructions, or the intervention group that received written instructions outlining postoperative pain expectations and recommendations for opioid medication usage and disposal. Both groups received equivalent prescriptions targeted to the use group (low, medium, or high). At the 4-week postoperative mark, a telephone interview was conducted to evaluate the primary outcome of pain satisfaction using a modified brief pain inventory. Secondary outcomes included renewal of opioid prescription and disposal method of leftover medication. Results: A total of 80 patients were recruited for this study. Of the 80 patients, 22 were classified as low use, 45 moderate use, and 13 high use. There was no difference among group demographics, other than the surgery being performed. Of the 80 patients, 41 received postoperative pain instructions and 39 did not. On average, pain satisfaction postoperatively was 8.19/10, where 10/10 represented completely satisfied. Interference scores averaged 27.18/70. Interestingly, only seven patients (six moderate use and one high use) used the entirety of their prescription, and only five patients required a renewal of their prescription. Only five patients returned their surplus medication to the pharmacy despite 41 patients receiving direct instructions to do so. Conclusions: Written discharge instructions in this patient population did not appear to improve postoperative pain scores. Interestingly, this study captured that a small percentage of postoperative pain medication prescriptions are completely utilized. Even more concerning is the fact that very little of the leftover pain medication is disposed of appropriately. Overprescribing narcotic medication may contribute to the issue of opioid abuse, and we should consider our role in minimizing opioid prescriptions postoperatively.

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)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.303
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