ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2023
Assessment of high-risk opioid use metrics among individuals with spinal cord injury: A brief report.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of opioid use in adults with spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Risk and protective factors for emergency department visits and related hospitalizations among ambulatory adults with traumatic spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- The Effect of Antinociceptive Dose of Morphine on Cell Therapy in Rats with Spinal Cord Injury.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Self-Reported Prescription Opioid Use Among Participants with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine high-risk opioid prescription metrics among individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) living in South Carolina.
designCohort Study.
settingTwo statewide population-based databases, an SCI Surveillance Registry and state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP).
participantsLinked data was obtained for 503 individuals with chronic (>1year-post injury) SCI who were injured in 2013 or 2014 and who survived at least 3 years post-injury.
interventionsNot applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Opioid prescription metrics were obtained from the PDMP. Fill data during the period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 were analyzed to assess high-risk opioid use. Outcomes included: percentage of individuals prescribed chronic opioids, high-dose chronic opioid therapy (daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) ≥50 and ≥90), and chronic concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines, sedatives, or hypnotics (BSH).
resultsOver half (53%) of the individuals filled an opioid in years 2-3 after injury. Of those, 38% had a concurrent BSH fill during the study period, 76% of which were for benzodiazepines. In any given quarter over the two-year timeframe, over half of the opioid prescriptions were for 60 days or more (chronic opioid prescriptions). Of those, roughly 40% of the individuals had high-dose chronic opioid prescriptions ≥50 MME/d and 25% were ≥90 MME/d. Over 33% had a concurrent BSH prescription for ≥60 days.
conclusionsWhile the number of individuals receiving high-risk opioid prescriptions may not be large, it is a concerning number of prescriptions. The findings suggest a need for more cautious opioid prescribing and monitoring of high-risk use in adults with chronic SCI.
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.