Cited by 162Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Strategies to Identify Patient Risks of Prescription Opioid Addiction When Initiating Opioids for Pain: A Systematic Review

Open access
Klimas, Jan, Gorfinkel, Lauren, Fairbairn, Nadia, Amato, Laura, Ahamad, Keith, Nolan, Seonaid, Simel, David L., Wood, Evan·2019·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Although prescription opioid use disorder is associated with substantial harms, strategies to identify patients with pain among whom prescription opioids can be safely prescribed have not been systematically reviewed. Objective: To review the evidence examining factors associated with opioid addiction and screening tools for identifying adult patients at high vs low risk of developing symptoms of prescription opioid addiction when initiating prescription opioids for pain. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase (January 1946 to November 2018) were searched for articles investigating risks of prescription opioid addiction. Study Selection: Original studies that were included compared symptoms, signs, risk factors, and screening tools among patients who developed prescription opioid addiction and those who did not. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently assessed quality to exclude biased or unreliable study designs and extracted data from higher quality studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) reporting guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Likelihood ratios (LRs) for risk factors and screening tools were calculated. Results: Of 1287 identified studies, 6 high-quality studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 4 were included in the quantitative synthesis. The 4 high-quality studies included in the quantitative synthesis were all retrospective studies including a total of 2 888 346 patients with 4470 cases that met the authors' definitions of prescription opioid addiction. A history of opioid use disorder (LR range, 17-22) or other substance use disorder (LR range, 4.2-17), certain mental health diagnoses (eg, personality disorder: LR, 27; 95% CI, 18-41), and concomitant prescription of certain psychiatric medications (eg, atypical antipsychotics: LR, 17; 95% CI, 15-18) appeared useful for identifying patients at high risk of opioid addiction. Among individual findings, only the absence of a mood disorder (negative LR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.52) was associated with a lower risk of opioid addiction. Despite their widespread use, most screening tools involving combinations of questions were based on low-quality studies or, when diagnostic performance was assessed among high-quality studies, demonstrated poor performance in helping to identify patients at high vs low risk. Conclusions and Relevance: While a history of substance use disorder, certain mental health diagnoses, and concomitant prescription of certain psychiatric medications appeared useful for identifying patients at higher risk, few quality studies were available and no symptoms, signs, or screening tools were particularly useful for identifying those at lower risk.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3365

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [11]Simel D, Rennie D, eds. The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional; 2008.
  2. [12]Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3: 25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 14606960 PMC305345 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [13]Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6: 9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-9 16519814 PMC1421422 · DOI
  4. [16]Sehgal N, Manchikanti L, Smith HS Prescription opioid abuse in chronic pain: a review of opioid abuse predictors and strategies to curb opioid abuse. Pain Physician. 2012; 15(3)(suppl): ES67- ES92. 22786463

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klimas, J., Gorfinkel, L., Fairbairn, N., Amato, L., Ahamad, K., Nolan, S., Simel, D. L., & Wood, E.
Affiliations
  • School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Health Sciences Centre, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Regione Lazio (IT)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2019-05-03
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
e193365
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2942730080
Cited by
162
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (CIN 13–410)
  • Bond University
  • Michael Smith Health Research BC
  • European Commission (701698)
  • Canada Research Chairs (Tier1)
  • University of British Columbia
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (397968)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
prescription opioid use disorder, opioid addiction risk, pain management, opioid initiation, risk screening tool, risk factors, substance use disorders, mental health diagnoses, personality disorders, atypical antipsychotics, psychiatric medication, mood disorders, diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratios
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Female, Humans, Male, Opioid-Related Disorders, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment, Mood Disorders, Chronic Pain

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