ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Associations between pharmaceutical industry interactions with physicians and chronic nonmalignant pain management prescribing practices: a systematic review.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associations between pharmaceutical industry interactions with physicians and chronic nonmalignant pain management prescribing practices: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP) is commonly treated with opioids and other analgesics, yet prescribing carries risks and substantial costs. Promotional and financial interactions between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry may influence analgesic prescribing, but CNMP-relevant evidence has not been systematically synthesized.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to February 2025 (no language restrictions). We included observational studies assessing associations between pharmaceutical industry interactions and analgesic prescribing outcomes relevant to CNMP. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using ROBINS‑I, and appraised certainty using GRADE. We synthesized findings using SWiM vote counting by direction of effect, and undertook random‑effects meta‑analysis when exposure and outcome definitions were sufficiently similar.
resultsTen U.S. observational studies met inclusion criteria. Across 44 outcome contrasts, 38 (86%) were directed towards higher prescribing or higher opioid‑related expenditure among clinicians receiving payments/interactions; 6 contrasts evaluating marketing‑restriction policies were directed towards reduced prescribing. Because prescribing‑volume metrics were heterogeneous (e.g., prescriptions vs. days supplied), we did not pool volume outcomes. For expenditure, meta‑analysis of two studies showed that receipt of opioid‑related payments was associated with higher opioid‑related prescribing expenditure (pooled +$4,785 per physician‑year; 95% CI $2,162 to $7,408; I² = 93.5%). Under ROBINS‑I, studies were at low to moderate overall risk of bias, with residual confounding a key concern. GRADE certainty was moderate for prescribing expenditure and prescribing volume and low for dosage intensity.
conclusionsIn U.S. real-world prescribing datasets, pharmaceutical industry interactions were consistently associated with higher analgesic prescribing and higher opioid-related expenditures, with repeated evidence of dose–response patterns. Evidence from institutional restriction policies suggests prescribing may be modifiable when promotional access is constrained. However, the evidence is observational and largely does not identify CNMP patients explicitly; residual confounding and indirectness should be considered when interpreting magnitude. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024627184.
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.