Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36376628›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2023

The Role of Physician Networks and Receipt of Opioid-Related Payments.

Elle Pope, Neil Sehgal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Elle PopeUniversity of Maryland School of Public Health, 4200 Valley Drive, 3310C, College Park, MD, 20742-2611, USA. epope@umd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1362-5056
Neil SehgalUniversity of Maryland School of Public Health, 4200 Valley Drive, 3310C, College Park, MD, 20742-2611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpioid-related promotional payments are associated with increased prescribing of the promoted drug, but little is known about whether physicians receiving payments influence peers to accept similar payments.

objectiveWe examine the association of physician network-level position among peers and the acceptance of opioid-related promotional payments using national publicly available datasets from 2015. Design National cross-sectional data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Downloadable File and Open Payment data. SUBJECTS: Physicians who shared Medicare patients with at least two other physicians in 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Modified Poisson's regressions are used to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for social network position (i.e., degree, betweenness, and transitivity) and number of peers with payments as a function of individual receipt of opioid-related promotional payment and among those with payments, those who have five or more payments, and those who have $100 or more in payments. KEY

resultsPhysicians with opioid-related payments were significantly more likely to have at least one peer with an opioid-related payment (IRR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8), but had fewer shared patients (i.e., top quartile compared to the first quartile for degree centrality: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.4) and belonged to less cohesive networks (i.e., top quartile compared to the first quartile for betweenness centrality: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8-0.9).

conclusionsOur study demonstrates that physicians receiving opioid-related payments are more likely to cluster within physician networks.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidPhysiciansAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDrug IndustryHumansMedicareUnited StatesAnalgesics, Opioidopioidsphysician behaviorpromotional paymentssocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID36376628
PMCPMC10272029

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.