Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36808693›Full record

ReviewBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2023

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews.

Aili V Langford, Carl R Schneider, Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Lisa Bero, Jack C Collins, Benita Suckling, Danijela Gnjidic

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aili V LangfordCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-5136
Carl R SchneiderFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2921-5609
Chung-Wei Christine LinInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa BeroSchool of Medicine, Colorado School of Public Health and Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Jack C CollinsFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Benita SucklingFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Danijela GnjidicFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUColorado School of Public Health · US

Funding

NHMRC 1136849NHMRC 1193939University of Sydney
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.

objectiveTo synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

findingsTwelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.

conclusionsEvidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidDeprescriptionsHumansPainQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicAnalgesics, Opioiddeprescribingopioids and opioid receptorsoverview of systematic reviewspainprescription of drugs

Identifiers

PMID36808693
PMCPMC10953356
OpenAlexW4321327611

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.