IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v48y2025i11d10.1007_s40264-025-01563-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictive Models for Identifying Adult Patients at High Risk of Developing Opioid-Related Harms: a Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Malede Berihun Yismaw

    (Bahir Dar University)

  • Gregory M. Peterson

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Belayneh Kefale

    (Bahir Dar University
    University of Tasmania)

  • Woldesellassie M. Bezabhe

    (University of Tasmania)

Abstract

Introduction Opioids are the most frequently prescribed medications for managing moderate-to-severe pain and are associated with significant potential for harm. Several models have been developed to predict opioid-related harms (ORHs). This study aimed to describe and evaluate the methodological quality of predictive models for identifying patients at high risk of ORHs. Methods Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, we reviewed published studies on developing or validating models for predicting ORHs, identified through a literature search of Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The models were assessed by area under the curve (AUC) or c-statistic, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive or negative predictive value. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024540456). Results We included 36 studies involving participants aged 18 years or older. The frequently modeled ORHs were opioid use disorder (12 studies), opioid overdose (8 studies), opioid-induced respiratory depression (6 studies), and adverse drug events (4 studies). In total, 16 studies (44.4%) developed and validated tools. Most studies measured predictive ability using AUC (31, 86.1%), and some only reported sensitivity (14, 38.9%), specificity (11, 30.6%), or accuracy (4, 11.1%). Of the 31 studies that reported AUC values, 29 (93.5%) had moderate-to-high predictive ability (AUC > 0.70). History of opioid use (66.7%), age (58.3%), comorbidities (41.7%), sex (41.7%), and drug abuse and psychiatric problems (36.1%) were typical factors used in developing models. Conclusions The included predictive models showed moderate-to-high discriminative ability for screening patients at risk of ORHs. However, future studies should refine and validate them in various settings before considering the translation into clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Malede Berihun Yismaw & Gregory M. Peterson & Belayneh Kefale & Woldesellassie M. Bezabhe, 2025. "Predictive Models for Identifying Adult Patients at High Risk of Developing Opioid-Related Harms: a Systematic Review," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 48(11), pages 1177-1187, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01563-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01563-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-025-01563-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-025-01563-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01563-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.