Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880934›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2021

The importance of data source in prescription drug monitoring program research.

Jill R Horwitz, Corey Davis, Lynn McClelland, Rebecca Fordon, Ellen Meara

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving Policy Evaluations Of The Opioid Crisis.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Certificate-of-need laws and substance use treatment.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jill R HorwitzUCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0000-0002-5275-765X
Corey DavisThe Network for Public Health Law, Los Angeles, California.
Lynn McClellandHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rebecca FordonHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ellen MearaNBER, Cambridge, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-0211-1970
Harvard University · USNational Health Law Program · US

Funding

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING EPISODE-BASED HOSPITAL CAREP01AG019783 · NIA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Leila S. Agha · 2001 to 2026
$52.9M
Technology Diffusion, Health Outcomes, and Healthcare ExpendituresU01AG046830 · NIA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI SKINNER, JONATHAN S · 2013 to 2017
$4.5M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG019783NIA NIH HHS U01 AG046830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a legal research protocol for identifying various measures of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) start dates, apply the protocol to create a useable PDMP database, and test whether the different legal databases that are meant to contain the same information produce divergent results when used in an illustrative empirical exercise. DATA SOURCES: Original research from state statutes, regulations, policy statements, and interviews; alternative PDMP data from the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws and Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System; claims from a 40 percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, 2006-2014. STUDY

designCollaborative research effort among a group of lawyers to develop protocol. Legal research to produce an original database of dates state PDMP laws: (a) were enacted, (b) became operational, and (c) required query before prescribing controlled substances. Descriptive analyses characterize differences in dates of enactment, operation, and must query requirements. Regression analyses estimating, for each beneficiary annually any opioid prescription received in a calendar year, among other measures. Estimates conducted on under age 65 and full Medicare population. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsPDMP legal databases were linked to annual Medicare claims. PRINCIPAL

findingsAn original database differs from commonly used, publicly available data. Outcomes tested depend on the measure of PDMP date used and differ by data source. Must-query laws show the largest effects among all the laws tested.

conclusionsData choices likely have had large consequences for study results and may explain contradictory outcomes in prior research. Researchers must understand and report protocol for dates used in PDMP research to ensure that results are internally consistent and verifiable.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualData CollectionHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMedicarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Prescription Drug Monitoring ProgramsUnited Stateslegal epidemiologyMedicareopioidspolicy evaluationprescribing behaviorregulation

Identifiers

PMID32880934
PMCPMC7968938
OpenAlexW3081965216

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.