MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408643845 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.70577

The Evaluation of Patient‐Controlled Analgesia Compared to Standard Opioid Analgesic Therapy in Pain Management Among Patients With Sickle Cell Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Protocol

2025· review· en· W4408643845 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Pramila D Costa, Seyed Aria Nejadghaderi, Salha Humaid Al Bloushi, Wafa Ibrahim Saleh Al Shizawi, Nikhil Muduli, Sana Ahuja, Saleh Mohammed Saeed Alamri, Alireza Mosavi Jarrahi, Nabeel Al‐Yateem, Syed Azizur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Pain managementDiseaseOpioidSystematic reviewIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPhysical therapyMEDLINEAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited blood disorder characterized by the production of abnormal hemoglobin S (HbS), leading to the deformation of red blood cells into a sickle shape under low oxygen conditions. These deformed cells impede blood flow, causing vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs), which result in severe pain, multiorgan damage, and increased mortality. Despite advancements in understanding the pathophysiology and management of VOCs, optimal pain management remains a significant challenge. This review aims to evaluate patient-controlled analgesia compared to standard opioid analgesic therapy in pain management among patients with SCD. Methods: The relevant studies will be searched using a well-formulated search strategy using databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. It will be screened by two reviewers independently (screening phase), and further, the third reviewer may solve if any discrepancies are noted. The primary outcomes will be pain reduction in intensity and frequency of breakthrough pain reported using a standard pain scale. The secondary outcomes will be adverse reactions, mortality rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day readmission. Then, the eligible studies are assessed for risk for bias and quality by two review members using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies or Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool version 2. Besides, it provides strong evidence in support of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) as an optimal pain management strategy compared to other pain management strategies. It also explores PCA's safety profiles and common adverse events to provide evidence-based recommendations and establish a standard of care for treating SCD patients. Results: PRISMA format of reporting systematic review and meta-analysis protocols will be followed while presenting the results of this study. Conclusion: The findings potentially influence clinical practice, healthcare policy, and future research thereby guiding the development of evidence-based standards for VOC management in SCD patients. Trial Registration: CRD42024573178.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207