MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing consensus on core outcome domains for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management: results of the PROMPT/IMI-PainCare Delphi Meeting

2021· article· en· W3137920042 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyMedisinske fakultet, Universitetet i OsloCare and Public Health Research Institute, Universiteit MaastrichtUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesUniversité du LuxembourgInnovative Medicines InitiativeAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisUniversiteit AntwerpenParacelsus Medizinische PrivatuniversitätUniversitätsklinikum RegensburgUniversiteit MaastrichtRadboud UniversiteitKU LeuvenUniversiteit UtrechtAarhus UniversitetHelsingin YliopistoEuropean CommissionInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of OxfordBundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und MedizinprodukteRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsUniversitetet i OsloMacquarie UniversityAnglia Ruskin UniversityAarhus Universitetshospital
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativePhysical therapyObservational studyDelphi methodClinical trialIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Postoperative pain management is still insufficient, leading to major deficits, including patient suffering, impaired surgical recovery, long-term opioid intake, and postsurgical chronic pain. Yet, identifying the best treatment options refers to a heterogeneous outcome assessment in clinical trials, not always reflecting relevant pain-related aspects after surgery and therefore hamper evidence synthesis. Establishing a core outcome set for perioperative pain management of acute pain after surgery may overcome such limitations. An international, stepwise consensus process on outcome domains ("what to measure") for pain management after surgery, eg, after total knee arthroplasty, sternotomy, breast surgery, and surgery related to endometriosis, was performed. The process, guided by a steering committee, involved 9 international stakeholder groups and patient representatives. The face-to-face meeting was prepared by systematic literature searches identifying common outcome domains for each of the 4 surgical procedures and included breakout group sessions, world-café formats, plenary panel discussions, and final voting. The panel finally suggested an overall core outcome set for perioperative pain management with 5 core outcome domains: physical function (for a condition-specific measurement), pain intensity at rest, pain intensity during activity, adverse events, and self-efficacy. Innovative aspects of this work were inclusion of the psychological domain self-efficacy, as well as the specific assessment of pain intensity during activity and physical function recommended to be assessed in a condition-specific manner. The IMI-PROMPT core outcome set seeks to improve assessing efficacy and effectiveness of perioperative pain management in any clinical and observational studies as well as in clinical practice.

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.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.244 · 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