Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18514135›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pain2008

Nonmedical use of prescription opioids: furthering a meaningful research agenda.

Benedikt Fischer, Juergen Rehm

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pain, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Benedikt FischerCentre for Addictions Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. bfischer@uvic.ca
Juergen Rehm

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe nonmedical use of prescription opioids (POs), and related harmful consequences, has increased in many populations in recent years in North America. Existing survey data are typically limited to descriptive prevalence statistics, and fail to examine important determinants or circumstances (including motives) of nonmedical PO use. We advocate that such analytical queries should become integral elements in future surveys. Developing the needed survey items, however, requires conceptual thoughtfulness and rigor, especially given POs' potential for both therapeutic (eg, analgesic) effects and abuse. These considerations are concretely relevant for possible "self-medicating" nonmedical usage of POs as well as with regards to varying definitions of "pain." Furthermore, we support the harmonization of survey items on nonmedical PO use to allow for cross-national comparisons, yet also call for cross-cultural examinations into the determinants of the currently vastly discrepant medical and nonmedical PO use rates across Western countries. PERSPECTIVE: We support Zacny and Lichtor's call for systematic examination of motives presented by individuals engaging in nonmedical prescription opioid use. Such motives could relate to factors instrinsic or extrinsic to the user, yet their understanding is crucial for the devising of evidence-based interventions.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidBiomedical ResearchDrug PrescriptionsHealth SurveysHumansOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.