ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
The opioid industry's use of scientific evidence to advance claims about prescription opioid safety and effectiveness.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding pharmaceutical industry coalitions: a case study of Mallinckrodt.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Article
- Hooked before the first injection: The role of prescription opioids in early injection drug use initiation in San Francisco.Addictive behaviors reports · 2026Article
- Purdue's development of abuse-deterrent formulation opioids as a response to market competition: An industry documents analysis.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2026Article
- A portrait of commissioned literature: connecting the dots between medical education and communication companies, authors, funders and publishers.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Seeing the similarities: Applying a coherent lens to harmful products as drivers of suicide.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- 'Playing to extinction': the commercial determinants of gambling-related harm, suicidality and suicide.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- The Rise of Clinical Decision Support Algorithms in Pain Management 2009-2024.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Why do we tolerate the activities of the gambling industry?Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
- Why addressing conflicts of interest is essential to progress in reducing commercially driven health harms: Lessons from tobacco.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
- Lest a Smoky Haze of Doubt Suffocate Progress toward Better Pulse Oximeters.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Article
- The evolving burden of drug use disorders: a comprehensive epidemiological analysis from the 2021 Global Burden of Disease study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is widely recognized that pharmaceutical marketing contributed to the ongoing US opioid epidemic, but less is understood about how the opioid industry used scientific evidence to generate product demand, shape opioid regulation, and change clinician behavior. In this qualitative study, we characterize select scientific articles used by industry to support safety and effectiveness claims and use a novel database, the Opioid Industry Documents Archive, to determine notable elements of industry and non-industry documents citing the scientific articles to advance each claim. We found that 15 scientific articles were collectively mentioned in 3666 documents supporting 5 common, inaccurate claims: opioids are effective for treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain; opioids are "rarely" addictive; "pseudo-addiction" is due to inadequate pain management; no opioid dose is too high; and screening tools can identify those at risk of developing addiction. The articles contributed to the eventual normalization of these claims by symbolically associating the claims with scientific evidence, building credibility, expanding and diversifying audiences and the parties asserting the claims, and obfuscating conflicts of interest. These findings have implications for regulators of industry products and corporate activity and can inform efforts to prevent similar public health crises.
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.