Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25454406›Full record

ReviewDrug and alcohol dependence2014

What we know, and don't know, about the impact of state policy and systems-level interventions on prescription drug overdose.

Tamara M Haegerich, Leonard J Paulozzi, Brian J Manns, Christopher M Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

120 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

60 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tamara M HaegerichDivision of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy MS F62, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. Electronic address: EQD4@cdc.gov.
Leonard J PaulozziDivision of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 601 Sunland Park Dr Suite 200, El Paso, TX 79912, USA. Electronic address: LBP4@cdc.gov.
Brian J MannsPolicy Research Analysis and Development Office, Office of the Associate Director for Policy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30029, USA. Electronic address: WMU6@cdc.gov.
Christopher M JonesCDR, US Public Health Service, Senior Advisor, Office of Public Health Strategy and Analysis, Office of the Commissioner U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA. Electronic address: Christopher.M.Jones@fda.hhs.gov.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug overdose deaths have been rising since the early 1990s and is the leading cause of injury death in the United States. Overdose from prescription opioids constitutes a large proportion of this burden. State policy and systems-level interventions have the potential to impact prescription drug misuse and overdose.

methodsWe searched the literature to identify evaluations of state policy or systems-level interventions using non-comparative, cross-sectional, before-after, time series, cohort, or comparison group designs or randomized/non-randomized trials. Eligible studies examined intervention effects on provider behavior, patient behavior, and health outcomes.

resultsOverall study quality is low, with a limited number of time-series or experimental designs. Knowledge and prescribing practices were measured more often than health outcomes (e.g., overdoses). Limitations include lack of baseline data and comparison groups, inadequate statistical testing, small sample sizes, self-reported outcomes, and short-term follow-up. Strategies that reduce inappropriate prescribing and use of multiple providers and focus on overdose response, such as prescription drug monitoring programs, insurer strategies, pain clinic legislation, clinical guidelines, and naloxone distribution programs, are promising. Evidence of improved health outcomes, particularly from safe storage and disposal strategies and patient education, is weak.

conclusionsWhile important efforts are underway to affect prescriber and patient behavior, data on state policy and systems-level interventions are limited and inconsistent. Improving the evidence base is a critical need so states, regulatory agencies, and organizations can make informed choices about policies and practices that will improve prescribing and use, while protecting patient health.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidClinical Trials as TopicCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDrug OverdoseHealth PolicyHumansInappropriate PrescribingPrescription DrugsUnited StatesAnalgesics, OpioidPrescription DrugsEvaluationOpioidsOverdosePainPolicyPrescribing

Identifiers

PMID25454406
PMCPMC6557270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.