MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407290742 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.241542

Effect of emergency department opioid prescribing on health outcomes

2025· article· en· W4407290742 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jake Hayward, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Andrew D. McRae, Aynharan Sinnarajah, Kathryn Dong, Robert L. Tanguay, Lori Montgomery, Andrew H. Huang, G. S. Innes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversityAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineMedical emergencyOpioidOpioid-Related DisordersEmergency medicineData scienceFamily medicineComputer scienceOpioid epidemicPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The relation between emergency department opioid prescribing and subsequent harm is complex and poorly studied. We sought to quantify adverse outcomes, incremental risk, and rates of prolonged opioid use among emergency department patients receiving an opioid prescription and propensity-matched controls. METHODS: We used administrative data to sample all Alberta emergency department visits over 10 years, excluding patients with cancer, palliative care, or concurrent opioid use. Treated patients filled an opioid prescription within 72 hours after their index visit; untreated patients did not. We generated propensity scores to identify matched controls among untreated patients. The 1-year primary composite outcome included opioid-related emergency visits (e.g., overdoses), new opioid agonist therapy, all-cause hospital admission, or death. The secondary outcome was prolonged opioid use. RESULTS: After 13 028 575 eligible visits, 689 074 patients (5.3%) filled an opioid prescription. The mean age was 43.9 years, and 49.8% of patients were female. Most were high-acuity patients with traumatic, gastrointestinal-genitourinary, or musculoskeletal complaints. Patients who received opioids experienced 1.4% more primary outcome events (17.1% v. 15.7%), driven by all-cause hospital admissions (16.4% v. 15.1%; number needed to harm [NNH] = 53) and prolonged opioid use (4.5% v. 3.3%; NNH = 59). Opioid-related visits, new opioid agonist treatment, and mortality were unaffected. Incremental risk was low for patients with documented mental health conditions or substance use, and was highest for opioid-naive patients, older patients, and males. INTERPRETATION: Emergency department opioid prescriptions were associated with small increases in subsequent opioid prescription use and hospital admission, particularly in older and opioid-naive patients, and males; they were not associated with overdoses, new opioid agonist therapy, or mortality. Physicians should understand patient-specific incremental risks when prescribing opioids for acute pain.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→