To Use or Not to Use Opioid Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain Before Definitive Surgical Diagnosis? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the existing evidence, many physicians are reluctant to use opioid analgesia for acute abdominal pain. METHODS: We performed updated conventional and network meta-analyses. For the first time to our knowledge, direct and indirect evidence of any type of opioid analgesia was estimated and compared using network meta-analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain between the two cohorts (mean difference (MD) = 0.43 (-0.05 to 0.91), P = 0.08). In addition, no significant difference was detected in the rate of incorrect diagnoses between the opioid analgesia and the placebo cohorts (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79 (0.54 to 1.17), P = 0.24). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the results of direct evidence of head-to-head comparisons of opioid analgesics with placebo were in accordance with the results of conventional meta-analysis. Moreover, estimation and comparison of the indirect evidence on the four opioid analgesics did not demonstrate significant differences in effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Any type of opioid analgesic can be used safely for acute abdominal pain without risk of impairment of diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.089 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".