ArticlePain2025
Comparative risk of mortality in new users of prescription opioids for noncancer pain: results from the International Pharmacosurveillance Study.
Article in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opioid-specific risk of respiratory depression in non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative risk of delirium among opioid users for non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of machine learning algorithms for the prediction of opioid-related deaths among UK patients with non-cancer pain.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Comparative risk of severe constipation in patients treated with opioids for non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study in Northwest England.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Evidence Summary for Pain Assessment and Management After Hemorrhoidal Surgery to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractAlthough opioids continue to be used internationally for noncancer pain, evidence to date on the comparative safety of different opioids is sparse and conflicting. The aim of this study was to examine the comparative risk of all-cause mortality in patients newly initiated on opioids for noncancer pain, across 3 jurisdictions in the United Kingdom (UK), United States, and Canada. A multicentre retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted. Data sources included UK national primary care electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), The Partners HealthCare Research Patient Data in Boston (US), and The Montreal Population Health Record data (Canada). New users of opioids aged ≥18 years without cancer were included. Patients with a diagnosis of a pain condition and with known back pain were analysed separately. Fully adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox-proportional models and adjusted for confounders. In total, 1,066,216 patients were included (UK: n = 993,294; Boston, US: n = 43,243; Montreal, Canada: n = 26,116). Compared with codeine, patients using morphine had a significantly higher adjusted risk in the UK {HR: 12.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.87-13.32]}, US (HR: 8.62 [95% CI, 3.34-22.27]), and Canadian cohorts (HR: 6.69; [95% CI, 1.35-32.22]). In addition, other factors associated with higher mortality were being on combination opioids, fentanyl, buprenorphine, and oxycodone. Compared with those on <50 morphine milligram equivalents/day, patients on higher-doses experience an incremental increase in risk. In new users of opioids, compared with codeine, strong opioids, including morphine, fentanyl, buprenorphine, oxycodone, and combination opioids, and those on ≥50 morphine milligram equivalent/day were associated with a higher subsequent risk of all-cause mortality.
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.