ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2022
Accuracy and validity of reported opioid prescription days' supply.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe primary objective of this study was to estimate the percentage of opioid analgesic (OA) prescriptions dispensed by Kentucky independent pharmacies with correctly entered days' supply in the state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) system in 2019.
methodsUsing a two-stage cluster design, pharmacies were sampled with probabilities proportional to the volume of dispensed OAs; 100 random OA prescriptions were sampled from PDMP records submitted by each pharmacy. Following recruitment, demographic information and hard-copy prescription data for sampled records were abstracted on-site. Days' supply was independently calculated by two pharmacists using a standard formula with disagreements adjudicated blindly by a third pharmacist. Adjudicated days' supply was compared with that submitted to the PDMP and classified as accurate/inaccurate. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the relationship between accuracy and prescription/practice-related factors.
resultsA total of 1281 OA prescriptions were reviewed at 13 participating pharmacies. Accuracy of reported OA days' supply was 89.85%, (95% CI: 86.90, 92.80). Factors associated with accuracy were presence of special instructions from the prescriber (OR 3.13 [95% CI: 1.43, 6.82]), presence of 'as-needed' directions (OR 0.29 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.47]), and billing to a third-party payer (OR 1.43 [95% CI: 1.01, 2.02]).
conclusionsAccuracy of OA days' supply reported to the state PDMP was found to be moderately high. Certain prescription-related factors influence accuracy and should be accounted for in future studies. Patterns, including opioid 'split-billing' were identified and may impact validity of PDMP and administrative claims studies.
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.