ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2020
Trends in risky prescriptions of opioid analgesics from 2011 to 2015 in Northern Germany.
Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Large Retrospective Observational Study of Nonpharmacologic Treatment Use Among German Patients Receiving Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Observational
- Prescribing of Opioid Analgesics in Germany: Opposite Trends When Different Quantification Measures are Used.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Exceeding the guideline-recommended maximum daily dose of opioids for long-term treatment of non-cancer pain in Germany - a large retrospective observational study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Subtypes in Patients Taking Prescribed Opioid Analgesics and Their Characteristics: A Latent Class Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDue to their euphoric and sedative effects, opioid analgesics have high potential for abuse and dependence. In the last decade in the USA and many Western European Countries the prescription rates of opioid analgesics have steadily increased.
objectiveThis study describes 5-year trends in the prescription of opioid analgesics and risk indicators such as duration, dose and 'doctor shopping' in Northern Germany.
methodsThe annual rates of opioid analgesic prescriptions have been analysed for patients with statutory health insurance processed by the North German Pharmacy Data Center for the years 2011-2015. A distinction was made between non-cancer patients and cancer patients, and different groups according to prescription duration and dose level.
resultsBetween 2011 and 2015, the annual number of patients with opioid analgesic prescriptions increased from 500,000 to 550,000. About half of non-cancer-patients (85% of the total sample) and cancer patients received opioid analgesics for 90 days or less. The rates for long-term prescriptions (⩾9 months) ranged between 6-7% for non-cancer patients and 7-8% for cancer patients. Between 1.2-1.8% received opioid analgesics in doses of more than two defined daily doses. The majority of non-cancer patients with opioid analgesic prescriptions were female. The average age of non-cancer patients was 66 years. About 80% of non-cancer patients with first opioid analgesic prescription received World Health Organization step II medication.
conclusionFor the first time, this study provides comprehensive patient-related analyses of opioid analgesic prescriptions in Germany over a 5-year period. Despite a slight increase in the overall number of opioid analgesic prescriptions, an epidemic spread of opioid analgesics cannot be observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.