ArticlePloS one2025
Identifying opioid agonist treatment prescriber networks from health administrative data: A validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the growth of collaborative care strategies for people with opioid use disorder and the changing composition of the illicit drug supply, there is a need to identify and analyze clinic-level outcomes for centers prescribing opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We aimed to determine and validate whether prescriber networks, constructed with administrative data, can successfully identify distinct clinical practice facilities in Ontario, Canada.
methodsWe executed a retrospective population-based cohort study using OAT prescription records from the Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres in Ontario, Canada between 01/01/2013 and 12/31/2020. Social network analysis was utilized to create networks with connections between physicians based on their shared OAT clients. We defined connections two different ways, by including the number of clients shared or a relative threshold on the percentage of shared OAT clients per physician. Clinics were identified using modularity maximization, with sensitivity analyses applying Louvain, Walktrap, and Label Propagation algorithms. Concordance between network-identified facilities and the (gold standard) de-identified facility-level IDs was assessed using overall, positive and negative agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsFrom 144 physicians at 105 clinics with 32,842 OAT clients, we assessed 250 different versions of the created networks. The three different detection algorithms had wide variation in concordance, with ranges on sensitivity from 0.02 to 0.88 and PPV from 0.06 to 0.97. The optimal result, derived from the modularity maximization method, achieved high specificity (0.98, 95% CI: 0.98, 0.98) and NPV (0.98, 95% CI: 0.97, 0.98) and moderate PPV (0.54, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.57) and sensitivity (0.45, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.47). This scenario had an overall agreement of 0.96, negative agreement of 0.98, and positive agreement of 0.49.
conclusionsSocial network analysis can be used to identify clinics prescribing OAT in the absence of clinic-level identifiers, thus facilitating construction and comparison of clinic-level caseloads and treatment outcomes.
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.