Management of Post-Acute Alcohol Withdrawal: A Mixed-Studies Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article reviews research on post-acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) management. METHOD: We conducted a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Revision and Meta-Analyses)-guided scoping review of the published PAWS literature, searching six electronic databases (from their inception through December 2020) for English-language randomized and nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 16 treatment studies met the inclusion criteria. The strength of evidence overall for pharmacologic treatments is low, with often only short-term results being reported, small treatment samples used, or inconsistent results found. However, for negative affect and sleep symptoms, more evidence supports using gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) and anticonvulsants (carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine). Although preliminary data support acamprosate, there were no controlled trials. Despite an older treatment trial showing some positive data for amitriptyline for mood, the clinical measures used were problematic, and side effects and safety profile limit its utility. Finally, there is no evidence that melatonin and other agents (homatropine, Proproten-100) show PAWS symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is some evidence for targeted pharmacotherapy for treating specific PAWS symptoms, there are few recent, robust, placebo-controlled trials, and the level of evidence for treatment efficacy is low.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".