Comparative efficacy of opioids for older adults presenting to the emergency department with acute pain: Systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature for studies comparing the efficacy of opioid analgesics for older adults (≥ 65 years) presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pain. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched up to August or September 2017. Reference lists were searched for potential articles and ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for unpublished trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were sought that compared the efficacy of 2 or more opioid analgesics for acute pain in older patients (≥ 65 years) in the ED. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed study quality, and extracted data. SYNTHESIS: After screening titles and abstracts of 1315 citations, the full texts of 63 studies were reviewed and 1 RCT met the inclusion criteria. This study randomized older adult patients presenting to an urban academic ED with acute, severe pain to receive a single dose of either 0.0075 mg/kg intravenous hydromorphone or 0.05 mg/kg intravenous morphine. This study found no clinical or statistical difference between the 2 treatments. CONCLUSION: The lack of published research in this area demonstrates a considerable gap in knowledge of the comparative efficacy of opioid analgesics in the growing older adult patient population. Physicians are often uncertain in their choice of analgesia, potentially contributing to the undertreatment of pain. It is clear that well designed RCTs are urgently needed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".