MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409747080 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1517279

Risk factors and clinical significance of refractory pain in patients with bone metastases: a comprehensive meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409747080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiju Li, Qingqing Liu, Yang Liu, Li Qin, Aimin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Meta-analysisBone painOncologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Refractory cancer pain, especially bone pain, presents a major clinical challenge that is difficult to manage despite the use of multimodal analgesic strategies. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of refractory cancer pain in this patient population and to identify potential predictors that may increase the likelihood of developing such pain. In addition, we performed a systematic review of previous studies that delve into more effective pain strategies. Methods: This meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on risk factors for refractory metastatic bone pain. The inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting the incidence and/or risk factors associated with refractory cancer pain, providing relevant statistical measures such as odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR), or relative risks (RR). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the R programming language. Results: = 2.7198). The analysis also identified several critical predictors of refractory cancer pain. The presence of multiple bone metastases was consistently linked to an increased likelihood of refractory cancer pain with an OR of 3.94 (95% CI: 2.64-5.87). Similarly, lytic bone metastases demonstrated a high OR of 5.99 (95% CI: 3.17-11.30). Furthermore, there was a strong correlation between the occurrence of refractory cancer pain with severe acute pain (OR = 219.20, 95% CI: 0.26-188127.63), breakthrough pain (OR = 16.44, 95% CI: 0.60-448.07), and psychological comorbidities such as depression (OR = 3.91, 95% CI: 1.22-2048.64) and anxiety (OR = 4.22, 95% CI: 1.22-2048.64). Conclusion: Refractory cancer pain, observed in approximately 70% of patients with bone metastases, poses a significant clinical challenge. Refractory cancer pain predictors include the presence of multiple and lytic bone metastases, severe acute pain, breakthrough pain, and psychological comorbidities. Collectively, our findings highlight the need for improved pain management strategies that address both the physical and psychological aspects of cancer 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.072
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207