Checking Each Other's Math: Is It Possible Without a Single Standard for Opioid Dose Equivalence?

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Kyle P Edmonds, Rabia S Atayee
{"title":"Checking Each Other's Math: Is It Possible Without a Single Standard for Opioid Dose Equivalence?","authors":"Kyle P Edmonds, Rabia S Atayee","doi":"10.1080/15360288.2023.2240303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the last decade or more, there has been a proliferation of guidance, policies, and protocols on opioid prescribing that rely on oral morphine equivalents (OME) or morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD) (1–4). Almost exclusively, this guidance has presumed that OME calculations are standardized and predictable, while those of us who do the work of specialist palliative care on a daily basis know that not to be true. Some experts are encouraging us to dispense with the concept of “equianalgesia” altogether and instead adopt conversion tables as our primary clinical decision aides (5). Few studies have examined the safety and efficacy of opioid dosing decision aids. As such, the tool we use at University of California San Diego Health (6) is different from tools used at other institutions across the country or in widely utilized online calculators such as MD CalcTM. Given this fact, we teach our rotating learners that they should advocate for use of one equianalgesic tool at their institution, choosing a method of equianalgesic calculation that makes sense to them and stick with it. This may minimize intraand inter-tool variability in their clinical decisions and also facilitate direct comparison among colleagues/ teams using other decision tools. Results","PeriodicalId":16645,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2023.2240303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For the last decade or more, there has been a proliferation of guidance, policies, and protocols on opioid prescribing that rely on oral morphine equivalents (OME) or morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD) (1–4). Almost exclusively, this guidance has presumed that OME calculations are standardized and predictable, while those of us who do the work of specialist palliative care on a daily basis know that not to be true. Some experts are encouraging us to dispense with the concept of “equianalgesia” altogether and instead adopt conversion tables as our primary clinical decision aides (5). Few studies have examined the safety and efficacy of opioid dosing decision aids. As such, the tool we use at University of California San Diego Health (6) is different from tools used at other institutions across the country or in widely utilized online calculators such as MD CalcTM. Given this fact, we teach our rotating learners that they should advocate for use of one equianalgesic tool at their institution, choosing a method of equianalgesic calculation that makes sense to them and stick with it. This may minimize intraand inter-tool variability in their clinical decisions and also facilitate direct comparison among colleagues/ teams using other decision tools. Results
检查彼此的数学:没有阿片类药物剂量当量的单一标准可能吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信