Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33762186›Full record

ReviewTranslational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine2021

Assessing opioid overdose risk: a review of clinical prediction models utilizing patient-level data.

Iraklis Erik Tseregounis, Stephen G Henry

Open access · greenAbstract readReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Review in Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Prediction of individualised 6-month mortality risk in opioid use disorder.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iraklis Erik TseregounisCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Stephen G HenryCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA. Electronic address: sghenry@ucdavis.edu.
Center For Policy Research · US

Funding

Developing Patient-level Risk Prediction Models for Prescription Opioid OverdoseR01DA044282 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HENRY, STEPHEN G · 2017 to 2020
$2.5M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug, and specifically opioid-related, overdoses remain a major public health problem in the United States. Multiple studies have examined individual risk factors associated with overdose risk, but research developing clinical risk prediction tools for overdose has only emerged in the last few years. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on patient-level factors associated with opioid-related overdose risk, with an emphasis on clinical risk prediction models for opioid-related overdose in the United States. Studies that developed and/or validated clinical prediction models were closely reviewed and evaluated to determine the state of the field. We identified 12 studies that reported risk prediction models for opioid-related overdose risk. Published models were developed from a variety of data sources, including Veterans Health Administration data, Medicare data, commercial insurance data, and statewide linked datasets. Studies reported model performance using measures of discrimination, usually at good-to-excellent levels, though they did not always assess calibration. C-statistics were better for models that included clinical predictors (c-statistics: 0.75-0.95) compared to models without them (c-statistics: 0.69-0.82). External validation of models was rare, and we found no studies evaluating implementation of models or risk prediction tools into clinical practice. A common feature of these models was a high rate of false positives, largely because opioid-related overdose is rare in the general population. Thus, efforts to implement prediction models into practice should take into account that published models overestimate overdose risk for many low-risk patients. Future prediction models assessing overdose risk should employ external validation and address model calibration. In order to translate findings from prediction models into clinical public health benefit, future studies should focus on developing clinical prediction tools based on prediction models, implementing these tools into clinical practice, and evaluating the impact of these models on treatment decisions, patient outcomes, and, ultimately, opioid overdose rates.

Indexed as

HumansModels, StatisticalOpiate OverdoseOpioid EpidemicPatient-Specific ModelingRisk FactorsTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33762186
PMCPMC8217215
OpenAlexW3139147546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.