↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Prevalence of Preoperative Opioid Use and Characteristics Associated With Opioid Use Among Patients Presenting for Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Surgery, October 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence of Preoperative Opioid Use and Characteristics Associated With Opioid Use Among Patients Presenting for Surgery
Published in
JAMA Surgery, October 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul E. Hilliard, Jennifer Waljee, Stephanie Moser, Lynn Metz, Michael Mathis, Jenna Goesling, David Cron, Daniel J. Clauw, Michael Englesbe, Goncalo Abecasis, Chad M. Brummett

Abstract

Patterns of preoperative opioid use are not well characterized across different surgical services, and studies in this patient population have lacked important self-reported data of pain and affect. To assess the prevalence of preoperative opioid use and the characteristics of these patients in a broadly representative surgical cohort. Cross-sectional, observational study of patients undergoing surgery at a tertiary care academic medical center. Data were collected as a part of large prospective institutional research registries from March 1, 2010, through April 30, 2016. Preoperative patient and procedural characteristics, including prospectively assessed self-reported pain and functional measures. Patient-reported opioid use before surgery. Of the total 34 186 patients recruited (54.2% women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [16.1] years), preoperative opioid use was reported in 7894 (23.1%). The most common opioids used were hydrocodone bitartrate (4685 [59.4%]), tramadol hydrochloride (1677 [21.2%]), and oxycodone hydrochloride (1442 [18.3%]). Age of 31 to 40 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.45), tobacco use (former use aOR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.22-1.42]; current use aOR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.48-1.78]), illicit drug use (aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.16-2.60), higher pain severity (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.31-1.35), depression (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), higher Fibromyalgia Survey scores (aOR, 1.06, 95% CI, 1.05-1.07), lower life satisfaction (aOR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.93-0.96), and more medical comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiology score aOR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.37-1.58]; Charlson Comorbidity Index aOR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.18-1.41]) were all independently associated with preoperative opioid use. Preoperative opioid use was most commonly reported by patients undergoing orthopedic (226 [65.1%]) and neurosurgical spinal (596 [55.1%]) procedures and least common among patients undergoing thoracic procedures (244 [15.7%]). After adjusting for patient characteristics, the patients undergoing lower extremity procedures were most likely to report preoperative opioid use (aOR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.81-4.64), as well as those undergoing pelvic (excluding hip) (aOR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.88-5.08), upper extremity (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.12-4.45), and spinal or spinal cord (aOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.15-3.32) procedures, with the group undergoing intrathoracic surgery as the reference group. In this large study of preoperative opioid use that includes patient-reported outcome measures, more than 1 in 4 patients presenting for surgery reported opioid use. These data provide important insights into this complicated patient population that would appear to help guide future preoperative optimization and perioperative opioid-weaning interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 11%
Other 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 59 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 64 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#502,262
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#504
of 5,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,943
of 354,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#14
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 5,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 354,551 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.