SynthesisThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Prevalence of opioid use in adults with spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prescription opioid dispensing rates in the 12-months post-discharge after acute spinal cord injury: An observational study.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Observational
- Implications of Polypharmacy to Clinical Practice for Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Population-Based Approach in British Columbia, Canada.Neurotrauma reportsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prevalence, reported harms and factors associated with opioid use among adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community. STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsComprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus for articles published between 2000 and 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using a prevalence-specific tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool prevalence data for any context of opioids. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study protocol was registered via Prospero (CRD42022350768).
resultsOf the 4969 potential studies, 38 were included in the review. Fifty-three percent of studies had a low risk of bias, with a high risk of bias in 5% of studies. The pooled prevalence for the 38 studies included in the meta-analysis (total cohort size of 50,473) across any opioid context was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32-47). High heterogeneity was evident, with a prediction interval twice as wide as the 95% CI (prediction interval, 7-84%). Mean or median opioid dose was unreported in 95% of studies. Opioid dose and factors related to opioids were also rarely explored in the SCI populations.
conclusionsResults should be interpreted with caution based on the high heterogeneity and imprecise pooled prevalence of opioids. Contextual details including pain, cohort-specific injury characteristics and opioid dosage were inconsistently reported, indicating a clear need for additional studies in a population at greater risk of experiencing opioid-related adverse effects.
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.