Prevalence of opioid use in adults with spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1080/10790268.2024.2319384
Samantha J Borg, Cate M Cameron, Karen Luetsch, Adam Rolley, Timothy Geraghty, Steven McPhail, Victoria McCreanor
{"title":"Prevalence of opioid use in adults with spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Samantha J Borg, Cate M Cameron, Karen Luetsch, Adam Rolley, Timothy Geraghty, Steven McPhail, Victoria McCreanor","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2024.2319384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the prevalence, reported harms and factors associated with opioid use among adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Comprehensive 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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"170-188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2024.2319384","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence, reported harms and factors associated with opioid use among adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) living in the community.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: Comprehensive 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).

Results: Of 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.

Conclusions: Results 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.

脊髓损伤成人使用阿片类药物的普遍性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:确定在社区生活的脊髓损伤(SCI)成人中使用阿片类药物的流行率、报告的危害和相关因素:研究设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析:研究设计:系统综述和荟萃分析:在 PubMed (MEDLINE)、EMBASE、CINAHL、Web of Science 和 Scopus 中对 2000 年至 2023 年间发表的文章进行了全面的文献检索。使用流行病特异性工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。进行随机效应荟萃分析,以汇集阿片类药物任何情况下的流行率数据。此外,还进行了敏感性分析和亚组分析。研究遵循了系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,研究方案通过 Prospero(CRD42022350768)进行了注册:结果:在 4969 项潜在研究中,38 项被纳入审查范围。53%的研究存在低偏倚风险,5%的研究存在高偏倚风险。纳入荟萃分析的 38 项研究(队列总规模为 50,473 人)在任何阿片类药物背景下的总患病率为 39%(95% 置信区间 [CI],32-47)。异质性很明显,预测区间是 95% CI 的两倍(预测区间为 7-84%)。95%的研究未报告阿片类药物剂量的平均值或中位数。在SCI人群中也很少探讨阿片类药物的剂量和相关因素:基于阿片类药物的高度异质性和不精确的汇总流行率,应谨慎解释研究结果。包括疼痛、队列特异性损伤特征和阿片类药物剂量在内的背景细节报告并不一致,这表明显然需要对阿片类药物相关不良反应风险较高的人群进行更多研究。
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
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
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