ArticleJournal of pain research2018
A prospective, longitudinal study to evaluate the clinical utility of a predictive algorithm that detects risk of opioid use disorder.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individualized Prospective Prediction of Opioid Use Disorder.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2023Article
- Preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgery.Shoulder & elbow · 2021Article
- Validation Study of a Predictive Algorithm to Evaluate Opioid Use Disorder in a Primary Care Setting.Health services research and managerial epidemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an algorithm-based decision tool designed to assess risk associated with opioid use. Specifically, we sought to assess how physicians were using the profile in patient care and how its use affected patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective, longitudinal study was conducted to assess the utility of precision medicine testing in 5,397 patients across 100 clinics in the USA. Using a patent-protected, validated algorithm combining specific genetic risk factors with phenotypic traits, patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk patients for opioid abuse. Physicians who ordered precision medicine testing were asked to complete patient evaluations and document their actions, decisions, and perceptions regarding the utility of the precision medicine tests. The patient outcomes associated with each treatment action were carefully documented.
resultsPhysicians used the profile to guide treatment decisions for over half of the patients. Of those, guided treatment decisions for 24.5% of the patients were opioid related, including changing the opioid prescribed, starting an opioid, or titrating a patient off the opioid. Treatment guidance was strongly influenced by profile-predicted opioid use disorder (OUD) risk. Most importantly, patients whose physicians used the profile to guide opioid-related treatment decisions had improved clinical outcomes, including better pain management by medication adjustments, with an average pain decrease of 3.4 points on a scale of 1-10.
conclusionPatients whose physicians used the profile to guide opioid-related treatment decisions had improved clinical outcomes, as measured by decreased pain levels resulting from better pain management with prescribed medications. The clinical utility of the profile is twofold. It provides clinically actionable recommendations that can be used to 1) prevent OUD through limiting initial opioid prescriptions and 2) reduce pain in patients at low risk of developing OUD.
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.