↓ Skip to main content

Potentially Inappropriate Opioid Prescribing, Overdose, and Mortality in Massachusetts, 2011–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
twitter
29 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Potentially Inappropriate Opioid Prescribing, Overdose, and Mortality in Massachusetts, 2011–2015
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4532-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam J. Rose, Dana Bernson, Kenneth Kwan Ho Chui, Thomas Land, Alexander Y. Walley, Marc R. LaRochelle, Bradley D. Stein, Thomas J. Stopka

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) may contribute to opioid overdose. To examine the association between PIP and adverse events. Cohort study. Three million seventy-eight thousand thirty-four individuals age ≥ 18, without disseminated cancer, who received prescription opioids between 2011 and 2015. We defined PIP as (a) morphine equivalent dose ≥ 100 mg/day in ≥ 3 months; (b) overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions in ≥ 3 months; (c) ≥ 4 opioid prescribers in any quarter; (d) ≥ 4 opioid-dispensing pharmacies in any quarter; (e) cash purchase of prescription opioids on ≥ 3 occasions; and (f) receipt of opioids in 3 consecutive months without a documented pain diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify PIP practices associated with non-fatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality, controlling for covariates. All six types of PIP were associated with higher adjusted hazard for all-cause mortality, four of six with non-fatal overdose, and five of six with fatal overdose. Lacking a documented pain diagnosis was associated with non-fatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.02-2.41), as was high-dose opioids (AHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.59-1.76). Co-prescription of benzodiazepines was associated with fatal overdose (AHR 4.23, 95% CI 3.85-4.65). High-dose opioids were associated with all-cause mortality (AHR 2.18, 95% CI 2.14-2.23), as was lacking a documented pain diagnosis (AHR 2.05, 95% CI 2.01-2.09). Compared to those who received opioids without PIP, the hazard for fatal opioid overdose with one, two, three, and ≥ four PIP subtypes were 4.24, 7.05, 10.28, and 12.99 (test of linear trend, p < 0.001). PIP was associated with higher hazard for all-cause mortality, fatal overdose, and non-fatal overdose. Our study implies the possibility of creating a risk score incorporating multiple PIP subtypes, which could be displayed to prescribers in real time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 23 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 25 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2018.
All research outputs
#400,616
of 25,380,459 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#319
of 8,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,789
of 335,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#8
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.