SynthesisDrug safety2025
Predictive Models for Identifying Adult Patients at High Risk of Developing Opioid-Related Harms: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOpioids are the most frequently prescribed medications for managing moderate-to-severe pain and are associated with significant potential for harm. Several models have been developed to predict opioid-related harms (ORHs). This study aimed to describe and evaluate the methodological quality of predictive models for identifying patients at high risk of ORHs.
methodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, we reviewed published studies on developing or validating models for predicting ORHs, identified through a literature search of Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The models were assessed by area under the curve (AUC) or c-statistic, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive or negative predictive value. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024540456).
resultsWe included 36 studies involving participants aged 18 years or older. The frequently modeled ORHs were opioid use disorder (12 studies), opioid overdose (8 studies), opioid-induced respiratory depression (6 studies), and adverse drug events (4 studies). In total, 16 studies (44.4%) developed and validated tools. Most studies measured predictive ability using AUC (31, 86.1%), and some only reported sensitivity (14, 38.9%), specificity (11, 30.6%), or accuracy (4, 11.1%). Of the 31 studies that reported AUC values, 29 (93.5%) had moderate-to-high predictive ability (AUC > 0.70). History of opioid use (66.7%), age (58.3%), comorbidities (41.7%), sex (41.7%), and drug abuse and psychiatric problems (36.1%) were typical factors used in developing models.
conclusionsThe included predictive models showed moderate-to-high discriminative ability for screening patients at risk of ORHs. However, future studies should refine and validate them in various settings before considering the translation into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40434632What 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.