Opioid Prescribing in the Elderly: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To characterize the literature describing the therapeutic use of opioids in the elderly. Data Sources: Two electronic databases, EMBASE and MEDLINE, were searched from years 1990 to September 5, 2018. Relevant reference lists were reviewed. Searches were restricted to English language. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened 827 citations to identify observational studies, population-based cohort studies, retrospective analyses, and control trials looking at the management of persistent pain in patients aged ≥65 years and/or frail patients. Data Synthesis: Thirty-nine articles were included in the systematic review. More specifically, 17 observational studies, 7 population-based cohort studies, 10 retrospective analyses, and 4 controlled trials. The most common etiology of persistent pain was musculoskeletal (50%), and the most often adverse effects reported were central nervous system related (41%) and falls/fractures (39%). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: As there is a lack of strong evidence-based recommendations for opioid use in the elderly, this review aims to evaluate opioid use in the elderly and compare their efficacy and safety among this population. Conclusions: Overall, central nervous system adverse effects were most commonly seen in the elderly. However, higher quality evidence is required to further appreciate the dose-related effects on efficacy and safety of opioids in the elderly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".