MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415906415 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-107258

Comparative effectiveness of opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after outpatient breast surgery: PAIN-Alt trial protocol

2025· article· en· W4415906415 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julio F. Fiore, Samin Shirzadi, Karine Roversi, Ipshita Prakash, Stephanie M. Wong, Sarkis Meterissian, Ari N. Meguerditchian, Christine Desbiens, Justin Rivard, Lisa Findlay-Shirras, Jad Abou Khalil, Allison H. Maciver, May Lynn Quan, Karine Verreault, Sarah Iles Johnston, Liane S. Feldman, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Respiratory Research NetworkLondon Health Sciences CentreCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaJewish General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProtocol (science)OpioidClinical trialBreast cancerMEDLINERandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery can lead to adverse events and exacerbate the opioid crisis. Patients undergoing outpatient breast surgery are often prescribed opioids to manage pain at home; however, the value of this approach is uncertain. The Postoperative Analgesia Intervention with Non-opioid Alternatives (PAIN Alt) trial will address the following research question: among patients undergoing outpatient breast surgery, does opioid-free analgesia (OFA) result in non-inferior 7-day pain intensity and pain interference in comparison to opioid analgesia (OA)? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel, assessor-blind, open-label randomised trial conducted at seven university-affiliated hospitals in Canada. A sample of 540 adult patients (>18 years) undergoing outpatient mastectomy or lumpectomy will be included. Participants are allocated 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock non-opioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock non-opioids, with adjustment of non-opioid drugs and/or non-pharmacological interventions for breakthrough pain). The co-primary outcomes are 7-day pain intensity and pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). Secondary outcomes include adverse drug events, physical and mental health status, satisfaction with pain management, postoperative complications, chronic pain, opioid misuse, persistent opioid use, healthcare utilisation and costs. The primary statistical analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle and be conducted using mixed-effects modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is coordinated by the McGill University Health Centre (ethics approval MP-37-2024-102530), with ethics approval being sought at all participating sites. Our results will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to the public through press releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06507345.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.019

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicAnesthesia and Pain Management→French-language works237,207→