MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416093024 · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02957-2

Evaluating buprenorphine to treat cancer pain: a systematic review protocol

2025· review· en· W4416093024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafina Khateeb, Victoria D. Powell, Jack M. Rosenberg, Lauren L. Rose, Kayla Sheehan, Philip Papaioannou, Maria J. Silveira

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)BuprenorphineCancerMEDLINESystematic reviewDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience pain related to their disease. Opioids are commonly used for moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain but carry significant side effects that may worsen quality of life. Buprenorphine, a partial mu opioid receptor (MOR) agonist, is increasingly used for the management of cancer-related pain. Although well studied as a treatment for opioid use disorder, its role in managing cancer pain is less understood. METHODS: We aim to systematically gather, assess, and summarize prior studies on the impact of buprenorphine upon cancer-related pain. Cochrane CENTRAL, OVID Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science will be searched in September 2025 for any studies available to date. Studies involving buprenorphine as an intervention upon cancer-related pain will be included where pain outcomes are measured at two or more timepoints using a validated scale. Exclusions apply to case studies/series with fewer than five subjects, qualitative studies, conference abstracts, review articles, research protocols, studies solely focused on post-operative pain, and studies not available in English translation. After final selection, study type classification, and data extraction, a quality assessment will be conducted using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies. The summarized data will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. DISCUSSION: The primary objective is to fill a knowledge gap by summarizing literature on buprenorphine for cancer pain management, including a broad range of study designs, drug formulations, and dosing. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of buprenorphine's efficacy and safety in cancer pain management, which could inform clinical practice and future research directions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383591).

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.009

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.490
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207