↓ Skip to main content

The impact of chronic pain on opioid addiction treatment: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of chronic pain on opioid addiction treatment: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0042-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany B Dennis, Monica Bawor, James Paul, Michael Varenbut, Jeff Daiter, Carolyn Plater, Guillaume Pare, David C Marsh, Andrew Worster, Dipika Desai, Lehana Thabane, Zainab Samaan

Abstract

The consequences of opioid relapse among patients being treated with opioid substitution treatment (OST) are serious and can result in abnormal cardiovascular function, overdose, and mortality. Chronic pain is a major risk factor for opioid relapse within the addiction treatment setting. There exist a number of opioid maintenance therapies including methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, and levomethadyl acetate (LAAM), of which the mediating effects of pain on treatment attrition, substance use behavior, and social functioning may differ across therapies. We aim to 1) evaluate the impact of pain on the treatment outcomes of addiction patients being managed with OST and 2) identify the most recently published opioid maintenance treatment guidelines from the United States, Canada, and the UK to determine how the evidence is being translated into clinical practice. The authors will search Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and theses Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry. We will search www. gov and the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) databases to identify the most recently published OST guidelines. All screening and data extraction will be completed in duplicate. Provided the data are suitable, we will perform a multiple treatment comparison using Bayesian meta-analytic methods to produce summary statistics estimating the effect of chronic pain on all OSTs. Our primary outcome is substance use behavior, which includes opioid and non-opioid substance use. We will also evaluate secondary endpoints such as treatment retention, general physical health, intervention adherence, personal and social functioning, as well as psychiatric symptoms. This review will capture the experience of treatment outcomes for a sub-population of opioid addiction patients and provide an opportunity to distinguish the best quality guidelines for OST. If chronic pain truly does result in negative consequences for opioid addiction patients, it is important we identify which OSTs are most appropriate for chronic pain patients as well as ensure the treatment guidelines incorporate this information. PROSPERO CRD42014014015 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014014015#.VS1Qw1wkKGM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 108 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 28%
Psychology 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 26 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,756,606
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,704
of 1,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,511
of 237,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#38
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.