Iatrogenic addiction or dependence as a result of prescription oxycodone use in persons with chronic noncancer pain: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of addiction and dependence in persons with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) who are treated with oxycodone. DESIGN: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2020. Of 1,320 retrieved citations screened by two independent raters at title and abstract and full-text screening, six articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the systematic review. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment followed article screening. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. RESULTS: Two of the six articles reported addiction and the remaining four reported dependence. The incidence rates of addiction were 2.91 percent and 1.72 percent, and the incidence rates of dependence were 0.00 percent, 0.44 percent, 0.45 percent, and 5.77 percent. In all articles, addiction and dependence were treated as secondary outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had follow-up lengths of less than 31 days, which is insufficient to assess the incidence of addiction or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review show that oxycodone use leads to addiction and dependence in a small proportion of individuals with CNCP. However, one must exercise caution when drawing conclusions from the six included articles. Future studies in the area should examine addiction and dependence as primary outcomes using adequate follow-up periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".