ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Clinical Instruments Assessing Harms and Benefits of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile rates of opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain have declined, long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) remains common. Current clinical guidelines emphasize the importance of continuous reassessment and weighing of harms and benefits associated with LTOT to inform treatment decisions. However, specific guidance on which harms and benefits to assess and how to weigh these factors is generally lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize clinical instruments used to assess opioid-related harms and benefits in adults receiving LTOT for chronic non-cancer pain with a focus on instrument content domains and weighing of harms and benefits.
methodsStudy selection was guided by the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework. Studies were included if they described clinical assessment instruments used in adults prescribed LTOT (≥ 90 days) for chronic, non-cancer pain. We searched multiple databases and screened records using a multi-coder process. Data were extracted on instrument characteristics, content domains, individual items, and scoring.
resultsFrom eight thousand, seven hundred thirty-eight records, 37 studies describing 25 instruments were included. Most instruments were self-administered by patients. All instruments assessed harms (either current or potential). Of the 448 total items contained in the 25 included instruments, 12% assessed current or potential benefits (including efficacy of analgesia, functional improvement, and quality of life) and 88% assessed harms (including misuse and safety concerns). Instruments prioritized assessment of current or potential harms over assessment of current or potential benefits of LTOT. DISCUSSION: Existing instruments for monitoring LTOT predominantly assess harms-particularly misuse-and may underrepresent current or potential therapeutic benefit. The lack of instruments to guide prescribers on harms/benefits weighing leaves a major clinical research gap. REGISTRATION: Our protocol was registered online via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/3ckq6 .
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.