Talk:Opioid-induced hyperalgesia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ranaran35, Chellefsh, Pzrx, NavkiranSandhu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I know that withdrawal of opioid is not the only option--there is evidence for opioid rotation as a successful strategy dealing with OIH patients. Will look up references and add to the page soon. Ryan Blum (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that this page is a very good summary of OIH so well done to whoever wrote it. It could use some beautification and I suspect may require headings as awareness of OIH increases. 203.59.204.148 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Could the article perhaps include some information on the (ab)use of opioid analgesia in 'Palliative Care' scenarios, where the assumption of a linear dose/pain response actually leads to dangerous overdoses, which supresses respiration, and effectively causes death? 79.77.63.182 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.77.63.182 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We're planning on adding a few new sections and would be curious as to what others think of our edits: (1) Epidemiology: including statistics re: prevalence of OIH among opioid users (2) Differentiating between OIH vs. Tolerance: Similar because both require higher doses of opioids to get the same level of effect to treat the pain; different because tolerance means you become less sensitive to opioids. The two major theories regarding tolerance are (a) decreased receptor activation (AKA desensitization) and (b) opioid receptor down-regulation. OIH instead leads to allodynia, which is increased sensitivity to pain (stimuli that are not normally painful become painful) (3) Pharmacogenetic/Risk factors: genetic and environmental factors that may increase the risk of OIH (4) Pharmacology: describe proposed mechanisms, such as activation of NMDA receptors, increased excitatory peptide neurotransmitters (like cholecystokinin) (5) Treatment options for OIH User:Engie Salama 22:12, 17 October 2017 (PST)

Per CP 133, evaluation for question #4 This team did a thorough assessment in providing their information in their own words. The information that was extracted by this group from these resources were curated to provide the readers with the most pertinent information. It was easy to go back to these resources for further reading if more clarification was desired. Excellent work Group 5! Additionally, based on the group’s talk page, they wanted to add in more information about the pharmacogenomics and I think this a topic that perhaps may be difficult for some people to put into their own words. I think the group has done a great job at already editing their pharmacogenomics topic and I encourage them to continue using more references if they are having difficulty putting this heavily science focused information in their own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyak88 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… I appreciated the thorough secondary sources such as review articles and literature that we could reference/understand and further research this information as well. For the most part, these articles were available in PDF format where we were able to save them and view them offline. Also, all verifiable sources were readily available to readers - great work! I like the expansion on OIH as it was previously mentioned by other users it could use some beautification - I thought it was a great contribution to the page and did a great job differentiating between opioid tolerance and OIH for a general audience. Sng92 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I tried to expand and add on to the general information about OIH by including more about OIH and its relevance to tolerance. I also tried to include references to all of my statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMoises (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

At least for the management section I tried to make sure that all of the management strategies mentioned in this article are covered to some extent in all three cited sources.

The edits hit multiple topics and were incorporated seamlessly into the existing articles. They were well organized in different topics. Their information provided summarized the key points of topics and linked the information to other Wikipedia articles if appropriate. For example, this group expanded on the entire pharmacology and pharmacogenomics sections of the article, providing new information that was not included in the original article. The addition of the management of OIH greatly enhances this article, as that is important information for people to know if they have OIH. Trmor24 (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate the constructive criticism from our peer reviewers and I'm pleased to hear that these newly added sections provided helpful new information to this particular topic. We will work towards finalizing the edits to make sure everything is correct.

Hi, we're a group of students hoping to improve this article over the next few weeks. Our current plans: 1. Insert citations from secondary literature into currently uncited claims. 2. Add information that arises from secondary literature and cite as needed. 3. Streamline the wording to be more readable for laypeople. 4. Add more links to other articles for terms that are unlinked/ may arise during editing. Chellefsh (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Trmor24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yao's peer review
Yes it is a neutral point of view, as the student edit was made without bias point of view. All information provided on opioid and hyperalgesia derived from scientific journals and are backed up by appropriately listed sources. Information provided are concise and easy to interpret by the public community. Also, information in these edits are coming from different sources which imply correctness as sources are no coordinated. Thus, given that this edit was made with guideline of providing clinical practice information on opioid use and hyperalgesia, and that it is practically impossible to guess the perspectives of the editors while simply reading the article, we can conclude that the draft submission entirely reflect a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guigui09 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

UCSF Pharmacy Students: Proposed Wiki Edits
There are several sections of this article that my group and I believe can be revised and further developed. Each member has described the edits he/she would like to make.

First off in the pharmacology section I believe it would be beneficial to include an image of the how different opioids interact with the different receptors. This would be effective in illustrating the strength of different opioid medications. In addition opioid antagonists should also be included so people can understand why certain ones are more effective than others. (Jeffrey Shaffer)

Secondly in the pharmacogenomics portion I believe it would be beneficial to include names of specific enzymes e.g. CYP2D6 and how treatment regimens must be modified if a patient is a poor metabolizer versus an ultra rapid metabolizer. This is particularly important with opioid medications such as codeine and tramadol. (Karan Patel)

Furthermore I believe there should be an additional section outlining the common symptoms associated with opioid-induced hyperalgesia as well as the long term damage it can due to an individual. This will give readers very keen information regarding the dangers of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. (Michelle Lee)

Finally in the management section we would further build on the alternatives to opioids by describing different non-pharmacological and behavioral therapies. After collecting evidence on the effectiveness of these therapies I believe this information would supplement the already outlined treatment options to give a more holistic view of opioid management. (Navkiran Sandhu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranaran35 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Group 8:

'''1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The whole group did a great job at providing such useful information! All the facts were presented in a neutral way so there is no bias. --Avucsf (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?'''

In general, they included verifiable secondary resources that are freely accessible.@Ranaran35: for citation17, it is not freely accessible to the public. @Pzrx: for citation 14, it is not freely accessible to the public.Pharmacystudent1 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

For Chellefsh’s edits, I felt that the sentence “OIH is characterized as general pain, not necessarily confined to the affected site” has an improper use of a comma, and the sentence would probably flow better as “OIH is characterized as general pain that is not necessarily confined to the affected site.” There is no need for the comma. In addition, the period mark should come before the citation.

For Ranaran35’s edits, there should be a comma in the sentence “Conversely patients who are ultra-rapid metabolizers…” in order to avoid a run on sentence.

For NavkiranSandhu’s edits, I like the grammatical edit you made to “an NMDA antagonist”

Overall, this group’s edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. They have inserted valuable information that makes this article easier to read and understand. --Ashleyyam (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?

No evidence of plagiarism/copyright violation: I believe Group 2 did a great job on using reputable sources and communicating concepts without any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Group 2 made a significant and entirely unique way of conveying a difficult subject into lay language for every Wikipedia user to understand. I applaud Group 2 for making sufficient contribution to Opioid-Induced Hyperalgesia article. Mindyucsf (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
The edits made by the group were very substantial and contributed depth to the topic. It was very beneficial for the group to include names of specific enzymes (such as how CYP2D6 enzymes affect how a medication is dosed for an individual), since many opioids are ineffective if patients are poor metabolizers. The group also included more information about symptoms associated with opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Wikipedia supports a simplistic writing style so that all users can understand the topic that is being discussed, and I think this group did a great job at fulfilling this task. The content was easy to follow, and the grammar and spelling were all correct.

Jennifershieh (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. I did not detect any bias in the edits for the management of OIH. The group also provided objective information about opioid antagonists. The draft submission provides important and helpful information about OIH. Eyang92 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify.
Overall, the edits made seem to include reputable sources. Citations were used frequently. The resources are mostly from well-known articles or journals, which made the sources seem more trustworthy. My only note is that for the first few paragraphs, there were several words that included [citation needed] in the article page. I’m not sure if the group edited those specific sections, but this is something that can be improved on. Kathyle29 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?
I did not find any evidence of plagiarism. However, as stated by KathyLe29, there are several instances throughout this article that state "citation needed." Although I do not think this is a plagiarism or copyright violation, I do think it is necessary to included citations when required. Other than that, I believe this group did an excellent job contributing to this article with well-cited, reputable sources. (Cindy Nguyen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindynguyeen (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Opioid rotation, safe and effective or not?
Flagging for contradiction is messy and ugly, but I wanted to point this out because I don't know the best way to fix it.

We have the following two claims back to back:

"[Opioid rotation/swapping] was effective in some studies, but [. . .]"

and

"Opioid rotation is a safe and effective alternative to completely stopping opioid therapy."

These can both be true to a certain extent but one is definitely more true than the other, and should be reworded so the article speaks in a single "voice." 2600:1017:B12C:4D8B:FC11:DD96:3C01:42CA (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The references for opioid rotation are extremely weak; one, for example, is a single case study with broad conclusions and all include significant dose reduction.
 * If anything, these articles provide further evidence that the first line treatment should be dose reduction - if only suggesting that total abstinence may not be required. 110.174.145.186 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That certainly supports the current narrative in clinical circles. You guys are creating an even bigger mess for yourselves and patients. All the best to you - and good luck. 35.132.101.49 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)