Comment on: “Buprenorphine for acute post-surgical pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor, I read with great interest the recently published systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) on the efficacy of buprenorphine for acute post-surgical pain.[1] I congratulate Albaqami et al.[1] for this great study and wish to present my insights on that article. Albaqami et al.[1] state in the “Discussion” that “this was the first SRMA that evaluate the efficacy of transdermal buprenorphine and sublingual buprenorphine for postoperative pain management”. Although it might be technically correct, I wish to point out that another SRMA on this topic[2] got published recently. The only and slight difference is that while Albaqami et al.[1] included studies using both transdermal and sublingual buprenorphine, Machado et al.[2] included only transdermal buprenorphine studies. Even if we consider that this SRMA is unique in that it included both these routes when compared to the previously published SRMA,[2] Albaqami et al.[1] didn’t elaborate on the sublingual buprenorphine studies (reference # 11,21, 22,24 of Albaqami et al.[1]) anywhere in the “Discussion”. Moreover, the Vancouver style of referencing was violated as these 15 studies (references #11 to 25) were not cited before citing references 26, and 27 in the “Discussion”. Albaqami et al.[1] state in the “Methodology” that “Studies using fentanyl and tramadol in the control group were considered eligible as fentanyl and tramadol are well studied in clinical trials and understood opioids”. However, studies using a placebo and other drugs such as parecoxib, celecoxib, lurbiprofen, etc., for comparison were also included. Last but not least, Albaqami et al.[1] didn’t include a few eligible studies for this SRMA. For instance, studies by Nanda et al.[3] and Li et al.,[4] published in 2020 should have been included. Although another study by Patanwala et al.[5] got published in March 2022, I feel that this study could have been included in this SRMA. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| 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 it