The Long‐Term Safety and Efficacy of Opioids: A Survey of 84 Selected Patients with Intractable Chronic Noncancer Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. Despite a number of randomized controlled trials showing efficacy and safety in the short term, long-term data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To survey a selected cohort of patients with intractable CNCP with regard to long-term efficacy and safety of opioids. METHODS: The present study reports long-term results from a survey of 84 patients with CNCP. The majority of patients had neuropathic pain, were treated with opioids and were followed every three months for a median of 8.4 years. Outcomes examined were pain severity, adverse effects, pain relief, satisfaction, mood, problematic opioid use, tolerance, physical dependency, functional status, health-related quality of life, immune status, sexual function, morbidity and mortality. Measures included a numerical rating scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Brief Pain Inventory interference scale, Pain Disability Index and Short-Form Health Survey 12, version 2. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Both long- and short-acting opioids were reported to be effective, with few significant long-term adverse effects in many subjects in the present selected cohort. The majority of patients reported at least 50% or greater pain relief and a moderate improvement in disability. Functional status and health-related quality of life scores were not severely affected. Problematic opioid use, tolerance and serious adverse effects, including constipation, were not major issues. The authors emphasize that the results obtained in the present selected group may not be generalizable to all CNCP patients in whom opioids are being initiated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".