MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049631881 · doi:10.1111/acem.14112

Pain, and Not Opioids, Is Associated With Delirium in Older Emergency Department Patients

2020· letter· en· W3049631881 on OpenAlexaff
Raoul Daoust, Jean Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineEmergency departmentOdds ratioLogistic regressionIncidence (geometry)Emergency medicineOddsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Reply: We thank Dr. Meaden and collaborators for their interest in our study, their queries are interesting and deserve attention. It is true that the sample size for our cohort was previously calculated by Émond et al.1 to determine the incidence of delirium. However, the logistic regression analysis used in our study included the total 338 patients and not only the 41 patients with delirium. In addition, we reported a power calculation showing that with 338 patients, we had 80% chance of finding an odds ratio (OR) of at least 1.7 for a predictor of delirium, considering a baseline probability of 0.12 of delirium (41 cases). According to Chen et al.2 an OR of 1.7 is considered a small effect size by Cohen references, so we had sufficient power in our study to detect even a small effect size. It is also true that we did not have the power to examine the relationship between diagnoses and delirium in our study. However, in an ED setting, this relationship has not been clearly established. There was a significant association between patients who received opioids and patients with pain ≥ 65 (p ≤ 0.001), but not between opioids and delirium. Nevertheless, we agree with the comment that it was not possible with our data to know precisely how pain was managed during the study period. The level of pain was evaluated at the initial interview only and we do not know how the pain changes throughout the study, something that was acknowledged in the study’s limitations. We also agree that clinicians learn quickly that opioids cause delirium. However, this is based on low-quality data and maybe this teaching should change. The systematic review from Swart et al.,3 in 2017 cited by Dr. Meaden and colleagues to support this statement, reported that "there are some indications that meperidine and tramadol increase the risk of delirium […] The quality of existing research is limited." Moreover, pain was rarely controlled in the six studies included in the meta-analysis and the same authors state in the discussion section that "delirium as a result of pain, not as a result of opioid use, might play an important role in the included studies." Finally, they also state that “This review also suggests a protective effect of hydromorphone and fentanyl on delirium.”3 Our study provides more data to support the hypothesis that pain and not opioids is associated with delirium.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207