MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3008582693 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.214

A215 PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE ARE FREQUENTLY PRESCRIBED OPIOID ANALGESICS WHEN DISCHARGED FROM THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

2020· article· en· W3008582693 on OpenAlexaff
Tarun Chhibba, Remo Panaccione, Cynthia H. Seow, Cathy Lu, Kerri L. Novak, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Christopher Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentOdds ratioMedical prescriptionInflammatory bowel diseaseAbdominal painAmbulatoryConfidence intervalPopulationOpioidDepression (economics)Retrospective cohort studyInternal medicineEmergency medicineLogistic regressionDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suffer a substantial burden of morbidity related to chronic abdominal pain and are susceptible to opioid dependence and abuse that is associated with increased rates of depression, hospitalization, and mortality. While opioid prescription and renewal by a single provider minimizes the long-term risk of misuse, many patients with IBD will seek out care in the emergency department (ED) where short-term, ‘to-go’ use of narcotic analgesia is associated with potential treatment-related complications. Aims To assess rates of opioid prescription in IBD patients presenting to the ED and to assess factors associated with opioid use. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data collected in the United States National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2006–2015. We compared a study population of adult IBD patients (International Classification of Diseases ICD-9 555.X, 556.X) ≥18 years discharged from the ED to a control group of patients presenting with non-specific abdominal pain (ICD-9 789.0, 564.1, 536.8). The proportion of patients given opioids in ED and at ED discharge were calculated with relative standard error (RSE), and national level estimates were produced using survey weights. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of opioid prescription at discharge, expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results A total of 767,577 IBD patients were compared to 71,359,257 patients with non-specific abdominal pain. A total of 37.3% (RSE 4.7%) of IBD patients compared to 24.7% (RSE 0.8%) of controls (p<0.01) received an opioid prescription on ED discharge. 49.1% (RSE 5.6%) of IBD patients compared to 37.2% (RSE 0.8%) of patients with non-specific abdominal pain (p=0.02) received an opioid while in ED. Significant predictors of narcotic prescription at discharge in multivariable analysis included: age <50 (OR 6.83 [95% CI: 1.21, 38.48], p=0.03), non-white race (OR 4.73 [95% CI: 1.46, 15.39], p=0.01), and narcotic use in the ED (OR 5.27 [95% CI: 1.96, 14.21], p<0.01). Conclusions Nearly 40% of IBD patients were prescribed an opioid at discharge from the ED. This rate is significantly higher than for patients who present with non-specific abdominal pain and younger, non-white IBD patients were disproportionately more likely to receive an opioid prescription. Given the risks associated with on-demand narcotic use in IBD patients, our data highlight a potential gap in care for accessing comprehensive pain management solutions. Funding Agencies None

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→