ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2017
Evaluation and comparison of tools for diagnosing problematic prescription opioid use among chronic pain patients.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two data-driven approaches to identifying the spectrum of problematic opioid use: A pilot study within a chronic pain cohort.International journal of medical informatics · 2021Article
- Evaluation and comparison of tools for diagnosing problematic prescription opioid use among chronic pain patients.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2017Article
- Identifying problematic opioid use in electronic health record data: Are we looking in the right place?Journal of opioid managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prescription opioid medications are commonly used for the treatment of chronic pain. Assessments of problematic opioid use among pain patients are inconsistent across studies, partially due to differences between various measures. Therefore, the most appropriate measure to use is often unclear. In this study we assessed problematic opioid use in a sample of 551 individuals receiving treatment for chronic pain, using three questionnaires: the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule - Fourth Edition (AUDADIS-IV), the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) questionnaire and Portenoy's criteria (PC). These questionnaires yielded discordant positive rates of problematic use: 52.6%, 28.7%, and 17.1%, respectively, which did not change substantially when excluding AUDADIS-IV criteria of physical symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal. Although these three questionnaires share some statistically correlated content-based congruent questions, positive response rates to them were significantly different based on construction features, including questionnaires' referred time-frame, wording of questions and response alternatives. The findings of the present study illustrate strengths and limitations of the AUDADIS-IV, COMM and PC in diagnosing problematic opioid use in a population of adults suffering from chronic pain, and highlight the importance of recognizing and addressing specific questionnaire and question-related differences when identifying problematic opioid use in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.