ArticleBMC public health2023
Prescription drug monitoring programs use mandates and prescription stimulant and depressant quantities.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of pre-prescription review of suspicious data via intelligent supervision platform for secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases based on evidence-based medicine.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Article
- An updated view on the influence of initial opioid prescription characteristics on long-term opioid use among opioid naïve patients.Drug and alcohol dependence · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the mandate to check patients' prescription history in Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database before prescribing/dispensing controlled drugs has been shown to be an important tool to curb opioid abuse, less is known about whether the mandate can reduce the misuse of other commonly abused prescription drugs. We examined whether PDMP use mandates were associated with changes in prescription stimulant and depressant quantities.
methodsUsing data from Automated Reports and Consolidate Ordering System (ARCOS), we employed difference-in-differences design to estimate the association between PDMP use mandates and prescription stimulant and depressant quantities in 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia from 2006 to 2020. Limited PDMP use mandate was specific only to opioids or benzodiazepines. Expansive PDMP use mandate was non-specific to opioid or benzodiazepine and required prescribers/dispensers to check PDMP when prescribing/dispensing targeted controlled substances in Schedule II-V. The main outcomes were population-adjusted prescription stimulant (amphetamine, methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine) and depressant (amobarbital, butalbital, pentobarbital, secobarbital) quantities in grams.
resultsThere was no evidence that limited PDMP use mandate was associated with a reduction in the prescription stimulant and depressant quantities. However, expansive PDMP use mandate that was non-specific to opioid or benzodiazepine and required prescribers/dispensers to check PDMP when prescribing/dispensing targeted controlled substances in Schedule II-V was associated with 6.2% (95% CI: -10.06%, -2.08%) decline in prescription amphetamine quantity.
conclusionExpansive PDMP use mandate was associated with a decline in prescription amphetamine quantity. Limited PDMP use mandate did not appear to change prescription stimulant and depressant quantities.
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.