MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046184437 · doi:10.1097/tme.0000000000000310

Frequency of Opioid Prescribing for Acute Low Back Pain in a Rural Emergency Department

2020· article· en· W3046184437 on OpenAlexaff
Jean E. Jauregui, Rita J. Nutt, Asa M. Margolis

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Emergency Nursing Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentMedical prescriptionEmergency medicineOpioidFamily medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National guidelines created by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the American College of Physicians (ACP) support the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) over opioids when treating acute low back pain (; ; ). Opioids not only have many more side effects than NSAIDs but also carry the risk of opioid abuse and overdose (). The purpose of this study was to determine whether emergency department (ED) providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, are following evidence-based low back pain management guidelines by assessing the measurement of opioid versus NSAID prescribing. A retrospective chart review including data from January through June 2017 was conducted at a rural ED. Subject inclusion criteria were as follows: older than 18 years, had experienced new-onset low back pain within the last 1 month, and had been given an ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) code of M54.5. Data regarding the type of provider seen, the treatment the provider prescribed, and demographics were collected. Inclusion criteria were met by 162 subjects. While 52.5% of subjects were prescribed an NSAID at discharge, 53.7% were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Subjects whose injury was work related were less likely to receive an opioid prescription (p = 0.027, 95% CL). Subjects whose pain started within 3 days were more likely to receive an opioid prescription than those whose pain had started more than 3 days before being seen (p = 0.018, 95% CL). Despite the current evidence-based guidelines by the AHRQ, ACEP, and ACP against opioid prescribing for acute low back pain, more subjects received an opioid prescription at discharge than a prescription for an NSAID. This retrospective chart review determined the need for increased ED provider education regarding treatment modalities for acute low back pain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Emergency Nursing JournalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207