Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128624›Full record

ArticlePain and therapy2022

Diagnostic and Predictive Capacity of the Spanish Versions of the Opioid Risk Tool and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised: A Preliminary Investigation in a Sample of People with Noncancer Chronic Pain.

Rosa Esteve, Ángela Reyes-Pérez, Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, Andrea Gutiérrez-Extremera, Rocío Fuentes-Bravo, Rocío de la Vega, Gema T Ruíz-Párraga, Elena R Serrano-Ibáñez, Alicia E López-Martínez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rosa EsteveDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Ángela Reyes-PérezDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Carmen Ramírez-MaestreDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain. cramirez@uma.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3245-7844
Andrea Gutiérrez-ExtremeraDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Rocío Fuentes-BravoDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Rocío de la VegaDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Gema T Ruíz-PárragaDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Elena R Serrano-IbáñezDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Alicia E López-MartínezDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, S/N, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESUniversidad de Málaga · ES

Funding

Consejería de Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Junta de Andalucía HUM-566Consejería de Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Junta de Andalucía UMA20-FEDERJA-118Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PID2019-106086RB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate assessment of the risk of opioid abuse and misuse in people with noncancer chronic pain is crucial for their prevention. This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence of the diagnostic and predictive capacity of the Spanish versions of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R).

methodsWe used the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) as criterion measure to assess the capacity of each tool to identify patients misusing opioids at the time of the assessment. Eighteen months later, we used the COMM and the Drug Abuse Screening Test-10 (DAST-10) to assess their predictive capacity. In total, 147 people with noncancer chronic pain participated in the diagnostic study, and 42 in the predictive study.

resultsReceiver operating curve analysis showed that the SOAPP-R had an excellent capacity to identify participants who were misusing opioids at the time of assessment (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.827). The diagnostic capacity of the ORT was close to acceptable (AUC = 0.649-0.669), whereas its predictive capacity was poor (AUC = 0.522-0.554). The predictive capacity of the SOAPP-R was close to acceptable regarding misuse (AUC = 0.672) and poor regarding abuse (AUC = 0.423).

conclusionIn the setting of Spanish-speaking communities, clinicians should be cautious when using these instruments to make decisions on opioid administration. Further research is needed on the diagnostic and predictive capacity of the Spanish versions of both instruments.

Indexed as

Opioid abuseOpioid misuseOpioid Risk ToolScreener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain—RevisedScreening tools

Identifiers

PMID35128624
PMCPMC9098780
OpenAlexW4210479665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.