ReviewSpinal cord series and cases2018
The drive to taper opioids: mind the evidence, and the ethics.
Review in Spinal cord series and cases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are opioids effective analgesics and is physiological opioid dependence benign? Revising current assumptions to effectively manage long-term opioid therapy and its deprescribing.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Review
- Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Rates and Overdose Among Patients Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy.Substance abuse · 2023Article
- Assessment of high-risk opioid use metrics among individuals with spinal cord injury: A brief report.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Observational
- Opioid moderatism and the imperative of rapprochement in pain medicine.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Severe chronic pain following spinal cord damage: a pragmatic perspective for prescribing opioids.Spinal cord series and cases · 2018Review
- Influence of patient trust in provider and health literacy on receipt of guideline-concordant chronic opioid therapy in HIV care settings.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high prevalence of pain in patients with spinal cord injury, coupled with a national recalibration of opioid prescribing, presents a challenge. Prescribers may attempt to taper opioids, where observable harms from the prescribed opioid appear to outweigh benefits, a stance endorsed by the 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Different considerations apply when clinicians wish to reduce doses in adherent and stable patients, absent their consent. In this perspective piece, we acknowledge the problematic nature of opioids as a treatment. However, forced tapers may destabilize patients and clinical evidence to support forced tapers is lacking. We favor an ethic of informed consent when proposing changes to care involve meaningful risk, and suggest alternative approaches to optimizing safety.
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.