Pain experiences of adults with osteogenesis imperfecta: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pain is a common symptom of osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) among children and adolescents. However, little is currently known of the pain experiences of adults with OI. Aims: The aims of this study were to critically appraise the studies assessing OI pain, to synthesize the pain experiences of adults with OI, and to compare the adult OI pain experiences to childhood. Methods: An integrative review was conducted. Five electronic bibliographic databases were searched. Published quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed-method studies assessing pain in adults with OI were screened, reviewed, and appraised. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate quality scores, summarize sample characteristics, and synthesize findings. Extracted pain data were analyzed using constant comparison and consolidated into meaningful themes. Results: From the 832 titles identified, 14 studies including seven case reports met the inclusion criteria. Study appraisal scores ranged from low to moderate using the Quality Assessment Tool and the Case Report Checklist. The majority of studies assessed pain as a secondary outcome (71.4%) using well-established tools (64.2%). Adults with OI experience pain of mild to moderate intensity, which may interfere with completion of daily activities. Two themes emerged from analysis of the data: mild chronic pain persists despite surgical, pharmacological, or nonpharmacological interventions and past fractures and structural deformities may trigger onset of chronic pain in adulthood. Conclusion: Limited attention has been given to exploring the pain experience of adults diagnosed with OI. Pain is a long-term symptom of OI requiring further in-depth investigation to better understand and manage pain in adults with OI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".