A Scoping Review of Transdermal Buprenorphine Use for Non-surgical Pain in the Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A preliminary evaluation to review the scope and quality of evidence surrounding transdermal buprenorphine use in the pediatric setting for non-surgical pain was conducted. Our review revealed limited data available on the use of transdermal buprenorphine in pediatric patients. Most studies surrounding this subject involve accidental ingestion of buprenorphine and its use in the treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome. While indicated for use only in adult populations, small studies have shown encouraging results in reducing pain in children with few, if any, adverse effects. This is reassuring from a clinical perspective, as we hope to highlight the available evidence and invite researchers to expand future studies. Through this review, we have identified significant gaps in the literature surrounding the safety and use of buprenorphine in the pediatric population. To our knowledge, there are no major studies investigating this subject, and it is our hope that future studies will explore the use of transdermal buprenorphine as an alternative pain management technique in pediatrics. The intent of our scoping review is to highlight the lack of research in this area; therefore, future studies may be conducted to support its use in North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".