MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967666812 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028937

Testing a support programme for opioid reduction for people with chronic non-malignant pain: the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial protocol

2019· article· en· W2967666812 on OpenAlexaff
Harbinder Sandhu, Charles Abraham, Sharisse Alleyne, Shyam Balasubramanian, Lauren Betteley, Katie Booth, Dawn Carnes, Andrea D Furlan, Kirstie Haywood, Cynthia P Iglesias-Urrutia, Ranjit Lall, Andrea Manca, Dipesh Mistry, Vivien Nichols, Jennifer Noyes, Anisur Rahman, Kate Seers, Jane Shaw, Nicole K. Y. Tang, Stephanie Taylor, Colin Tysall, Martin Underwood, Emma Withers, Sam Eldabe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Chronic painPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)MoodBrief Pain InventoryClinical trialPalliative careAdverse effectNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-malignant pain has a major impact on the well-being, mood and productivity of those affected. Opioids are increasingly prescribed to manage this type of pain, but with a risk of other disabling symptoms, when their effectiveness has been questioned. This trial is designed to implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention targeting withdrawal of strong opioids in people with chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group-based multicomponent intervention combined with individualised clinical facilitator led support for the management of chronic non-malignant pain against the control intervention (self-help booklet and relaxation compact disc). An embedded process evaluation will examine fidelity of delivery and investigate experiences of the intervention. The two primary outcomes are activities of daily living (measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form (8A)) and opioid use. The secondary outcomes are pain severity, quality of life, sleep quality, self-efficacy, adverse events and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare resource use. Participants are followed up at 4, 8 and 12 months, with a primary endpoint of 12 months. Between-group differences will indicate effectiveness; we are looking for a difference of 3.5 points on our pain interference outcome (scale 40 to 77). We will undertake an NHS perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using quality adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full approval was given by Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September, 2016 (16/YH/0325). Appropriate local approvals were sought for each area in which recruitment was undertaken. The current protocol version is 1.6 date 19 December 2018. Publication of results in peer- reviewed journals will inform the scientific and clinical community. We will disseminate results to patient participants and study facilitators in a study newsletter as well as a lay summary of results on the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934; Pre-results.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.021

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207