Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37150305›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2023

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on providers' opioid prescribing patterns among patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Kayla N Tormohlen, Sarah A White, Sachini Bandara, Mark C Bicket, Alexander D McCourt, Corey S Davis, Emma E McGinty

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Drug-related physician continuing medical education requirements, 2010-2020.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2024
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kayla N TormohlenJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America. Electronic address: ktormoh1@jhu.edu.
Sarah A WhiteJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America.
Sachini BandaraJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America.
Mark C BicketUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, United States of America.
Alexander D McCourtJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States of America.
Corey S DavisNetwork for Public Health Law, United States of America.
Emma E McGintyWeill Cornell Medicine, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · USCornell University · USNational Health Law Program · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

An Evaluation of State Laws Intended to Curb High-Risk Opioid PrescribingR01DA044987 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCGINTY, EMMA ELIZABETH, RUTKOW, HELAINE · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior work suggests opioid prescribing cap laws are not associated with changes in opioid prescribing among patients with chronic pain. It is unknown how these effects differ by provider specialty, provider opioid prescribing volume, or patient insurer. This study assessed effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing among providers of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, by high volume prescribing, provider specialty, and patient insurer. We identified 224,290 providers of patients with low back pain, fibromyalgia, or headache from the IQVIA administrative database. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined impacts of opioid prescribing cap laws implemented between 2016 and 2018 on the annual proportion of a provider's patient panel who received any opioid prescription, as well as on dose and duration of opioid prescriptions. For providers overall, high volume prescribers, all specialties, and patient insurance categories, prescribing cap laws were associated with non-significant changes of <1.0, 1.5, and 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of chronic non-cancer patients receiving any opioid prescription, a prescription with 7 days' supply, or with >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, per year, respectively. There were two exceptions with high dose prescribing: prescribing cap laws were associated with a 1.5 percentage point increase in the proportion of high-volume prescribers' patient panel receiving an opioid prescription with ≥50 MME/day, and a 3.0 percentage point decrease in the same measure among surgeons. Among nearly all measured subgroups of providers and patient insurers, opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing.

Indexed as

Chronic PainMedicineAnalgesics, OpioidEndrinHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Analgesics, OpioidEndrinMMEChronic non-cancer painOpioid prescribingOpioid prescribing cap lawsPrescribing practicesState policy

Identifiers

PMID37150305
PMCPMC10256455
OpenAlexW4372233764

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.