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?

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1080/15360288.2023.2240303
Kyle P Edmonds, Rabia S Atayee
{"title":"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?","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":"37 3","pages":"213-215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"213-215\"},\"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}","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
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Checking Each Other's Math: Is It Possible Without a Single Standard for Opioid Dose Equivalence?
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Family Caregivers in Palliative Care Therapeutic Management: An Integrative Review. Intrathecal Baclofen Pump Refill-Related Cardiac Arrest: A Case Report. Pain-Induced Delirium in Patient with Dementia: A Case Report and Narrative Review. Implementation of Pharmacist Driven Gabapentinoid Titration for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in a Primary Care Setting. Longitudinal Evaluation of the Risk Index for Overdose or Serious Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression in Patients with Cancer.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1