The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characteristics of Opioid Prescriptions in 2009
Open accessAbstract
ing data at all or pooling data using network meta-analysis, we chose the latter; indeed network meta-analysis has been shown to potentially give more reliable results because of the integration of additional information. 5,6Although studies included in our review were from different sources, they were all randomized controlled trials and hence contrasts between treatment groups within each study should be comparable.In addition, we focused only on CP/CPPS categories IIIA and IIIB to reduce heterogeneity due to disease severity and focused on outcomes measured using National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index scales to reduce heterogeneity due to measurement error.Nevertheless, we explored potential discrepancies in treatment effects between direct and network meta-analysis results using the standardized normal method (z). 5,6Directions of treatment effect for the 2 methods were identical for all 12 comparisons; moreover, the magnitude of the effects between the 2 methods were similar except for ␣-blocker vs placebo, where z was large and reached statistical significance (2.9380, P=.003).We believe that this is an example of increased precision of treatment effects due to the network method "borrowing" information from indirect comparisons.Third, Jackson et al disagree that study data should be expanded using a Stata command so that it could be included in the meta-analysis, questioning how we could know the distribution of data.We only used this command for the treatment responsiveness outcome, which is a dichotomous outcome and does not need any assumption about distribution, normal or otherwise.We believe that using all available data, rather than omitting studies, is an advantage and will lead to more valid estimates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Are adolescents more vulnerable to drug addiction than adults? Evidence from animal models
Schramm-Sapyta, N. L., Walker, Q. D., Caster, J. M., Levin, E. D., & Kuhn, C. M. (2009) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1585-5 · Cited by 215
Cited by
Opioid Epidemic in the United States
Manchikanti, L. (2012) · Pain Physician · doi:10.36076/ppj.2012/15/es9 · Cited by 1,180
Brat, G. A., Agniel, D., Beam, A., Yorkgitis, B., Bicket, M., Homer, M., Fox, K. P., Knecht, D. B., McMahill-Walraven, C. N., Palmer, N., et al. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j5790 · Cited by 591
Seal, K. H., Shi, Y., Cohen, G., Cohen, B. E., Maguen, S., Krebs, E. E., & Neylan, T. C. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.234 · Cited by 515
Opioid Prescribing at Hospital Discharge Contributes to Chronic Opioid Use
Calcaterra, S. L., Yamashita, T. E., Min, S.-J., Keniston, A., Frank, J. W., & Binswanger, I. A. (2016) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3539-4 · Cited by 236
Schroeder, A. R., Dehghan, M., Newman, T. B., Bentley, J. P., & Park, K. T. (2019) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5419 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Volkow, N. D.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-04-06
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1299
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2004003285
- Cited by
- 815
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Characteristics of Opioid Prescriptions in 2009. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2011.401
- The paper
- Volkow, N. D. (2011). Characteristics of Opioid Prescriptions in 2009. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.