MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004524677 · doi:10.1111/acem.13934

The Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions for Frequent Emergency Department Utilizing Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3004524677 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Wong, Connor M. O’Rielly, Braden D. Teitge, Robert L. Sutherland, Scott Farquharson, S. Monty Ghosh, Helen Robertson, Eddy Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPsychological interventionCINAHLMEDLINESystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialChronic painHealth careMeta-analysisEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) present unique challenges to emergency department (ED) care providers and administrators. Their conditions lead to frequent ED visits for pain relief and symptom management and are often poorly addressed with costly, low-yield care. A systematic review has not been performed to inform the management of frequent ED utilizing patients with CNCP. Therefore, we synthesized the available evidence on interventional strategies to improve care-associated outcomes for this patient group. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception to June 2018 for eligible interventional studies aimed at reducing frequent ED utilization among adult patients with CNCP. Articles were assessed in duplicate in accordance with methodologic recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Outcomes of interest were the frequency of subsequent ED visits, type and amount of opioids administered in the ED and prescribed at discharge, and costs. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias tools for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 1,679 patients met the inclusion criteria. Identified interventions implemented pain policies (n = 4), individualized care plans (n = 5), ED care coordination (n = 2), chronic pain management pathways (n = 1), and behavioral health interventions (n = 1). All of the studies reported a decrease in ED visit frequency following their respective interventions. These reductions were especially pronounced in studies whose interventions were focused around individualized care plans and primary care involvement. Interventions implementing opioid restriction and pain management policies were largely successful in reducing the amounts of opioid medications administered and prescribed in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted interventions, especially those employing individualized care plans, can successfully reduce subsequent ED visits, ED opioid administration and prescription, and care-associated costs for frequent ED utilizing patients with CNCP.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207