MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400688885 · doi:10.1186/s12893-024-02494-0

Incidence and risk factors of new persistent opioid use after surgery and trauma: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4400688885 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Council of New Zealand
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)CINAHLComorbidityMEDLINEOpioidCohort studyEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persistent opioid use (POU) can occur with opioid use after surgery or trauma. Current systematic reviews include patients with previous exposure to opioids, meaning their findings may not be relevant to patients who are opioid naïve (i.e. Most recent exposure was from surgery or trauma). The aim of this review was to synthesise narratively the evidence relating to the incidence of, and risk factors for POU in opioid-naïve surgical or trauma patients. METHOD: Structured searches of Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were conducted, with final search performed on the 17th of July 2023. Searches were limited to human participants to identify studies that assessed POU following hospital admission due to surgery or trauma. Search terms relating to 'opioid', 'analgesics', 'surgery', 'injury', 'trauma' and 'opioid-related disorder' were combined. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the risk of bias for studies. RESULTS: In total, 22 studies (20 surgical and two trauma) were included in the analysis. Of these, 20 studies were conducted in the United States (US). The incidence of POU for surgical patients 18 and over ranged between 3.9% to 14.0%, and for those under 18, the incidence was 2.0%. In trauma studies, the incidence was 8.1% to 10.5% among patients 18 and over. Significant risk factors identified across surgical and trauma studies in opioid-naïve patients were: higher comorbidity burden, having pre-existing mental health or chronic pain disorders, increased length of hospital stay during the surgery/trauma event, or increased doses of opioid exposure after the surgical or trauma event. Significant heterogeneity of study design precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The quality of the studies was generally of good quality; however, most studies were of US origin and used medico-administrative data. Several risk factors for POU were consistently and independently associated with increased odds of POU, primarily for surgical patients. Awareness of these risk factors may help prescribers recognise the risk of POU after surgery or trauma, when considering continuing opioids after hospitalisation. The review found gaps in the literature on trauma patients, which represents an opportunity for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42023397186.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.232 · 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