↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

New Persistent Opioid Use After Minor and Major Surgical Procedures in US Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Surgery, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 5,851)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
163 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
492 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1544 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
879 Mendeley
Title
New Persistent Opioid Use After Minor and Major Surgical Procedures in US Adults
Published in
JAMA Surgery, June 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chad M. Brummett, Jennifer F. Waljee, Jenna Goesling, Stephanie Moser, Paul Lin, Michael J. Englesbe, Amy S. B. Bohnert, Sachin Kheterpal, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu

Abstract

Despite increased focus on reducing opioid prescribing for long-term pain, little is known regarding the incidence and risk factors for persistent opioid use after surgery. To determine the incidence of new persistent opioid use after minor and major surgical procedures. Using a nationwide insurance claims data set from 2013 to 2014, we identified US adults aged 18 to 64 years without opioid use in the year prior to surgery (ie, no opioid prescription fulfillments from 12 months to 1 month prior to the procedure). For patients filling a perioperative opioid prescription, we calculated the incidence of persistent opioid use for more than 90 days among opioid-naive patients after both minor surgical procedures (ie, varicose vein removal, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, transurethral prostate surgery, parathyroidectomy, and carpal tunnel) and major surgical procedures (ie, ventral incisional hernia repair, colectomy, reflux surgery, bariatric surgery, and hysterectomy). We then assessed data for patient-level predictors of persistent opioid use. The primary outcome was defined a priori prior to data extraction. The primary outcome was new persistent opioid use, which was defined as an opioid prescription fulfillment between 90 and 180 days after the surgical procedure. A total of 36 177 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 29 068 (80.3%) receiving minor surgical procedures and 7109 (19.7%) receiving major procedures. The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 44.6 (11.9) years and was predominately female (23 913 [66.1%]) and white (26 091 [72.1%]). The rates of new persistent opioid use were similar between the 2 groups, ranging from 5.9% to 6.5%. By comparison, the incidence in the nonoperative control cohort was only 0.4%. Risk factors independently associated with new persistent opioid use included preoperative tobacco use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.21-1.49), alcohol and substance abuse disorders (aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05-1.72), mood disorders (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30), anxiety (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42), and preoperative pain disorders (back pain: aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.42-1.75; neck pain: aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39; arthritis: aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.40-1.73; and centralized pain: aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.54). New persistent opioid use after surgery is common and is not significantly different between minor and major surgical procedures but rather associated with behavioral and pain disorders. This suggests its use is not due to surgical pain but addressable patient-level predictors. New persistent opioid use represents a common but previously underappreciated surgical complication that warrants increased awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 492 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 879 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 876 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 129 15%
Other 117 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 113 13%
Student > Bachelor 64 7%
Student > Postgraduate 61 7%
Other 186 21%
Unknown 209 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 412 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 31 4%
Social Sciences 17 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 2%
Other 84 10%
Unknown 271 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1595. 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 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,112
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#5
of 5,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105
of 330,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#2
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 330,893 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 97% of its contemporaries.