The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trends in Opioid Analgesic–Prescribing Rates by Specialty, U.S., 2007–2012
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Opioid analgesic prescriptions are driving trends in drug overdoses, but little is known about prescribing patterns among medical specialties. We conducted this study to examine the opioid-prescribing patterns of the medical specialties over time. Methods: IMS Health’s National Prescription Audit (NPA) estimated the annual counts of pharmaceutical prescriptions dispensed in the U.S. during 2007–2012. We grouped NPA prescriber specialty data by practice type for ease of analysis, and measured the distribution of total prescriptions and opioid prescriptions by specialty. We calculated the percentage of all prescriptions dispensed that were opioids, and evaluated changes in that rate by specialty during 2007–2012. The analysis was conducted in 2013. Results: In 2012, U.S. pharmacies and long-term care facilities dispensed 4.2 billion prescriptions, 289 million (6.8%) of which were opioids. Primary care specialties accounted for nearly half of all dispensed opioid prescriptions. The rate of opioid prescribing was highest for specialists in pain medicine (48.6%); surgery (36.5%); and physical medicine/rehabilitation (35.5%). The rate of opioid prescribing rose during 2007–2010 but leveled thereafter as most specialties reduced opioid use. The greatest percentage increase in opioid-prescribing rates during 2007–2012 occurred among physical medicine/rehabilitation specialists (+12.0%). The largest percentage drops in opioid-prescribing rates occurred in emergency medicine (−8.9%) and dentistry (−5.7%). Conclusions: The data indicate diverging trends in opioid prescribing among medical specialties in the U.S. during 2007–2012. Engaging the medical specialties individually is critical for continued improvement in the safe and effective treatment of pain.
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
Cited by
CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016
Dowell, D., Haegerich, T. M., & Chou, R. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1464 · Cited by 5,161
CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain — United States, 2016
Dowell, D., Haegerich, T. M., & Chou, R. (2016) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1 · Cited by 2,697
Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain — Misconceptions and Mitigation Strategies
Volkow, N. D., & McLellan, A. T. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1507771 · Cited by 1,305
Relationship between Nonmedical Prescription-Opioid Use and Heroin Use
Compton, W. M., Jones, C. M., & Baldwin, G. T. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1508490 · Cited by 1,044
Self-citationUS epidemiology of cannabis use and associated problems
Hasin, D. S. (2018) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.198 · Cited by 578
Metadata
- Authors
- Levy, B., Paulozzi, L., Mack, K. A., & Jones, C. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 409-413
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168667510
- Cited by
- 723
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.14
- 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: Trends in Opioid Analgesic–Prescribing Rates by Specialty, U.S., 2007–2012. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.020
- The paper
- Levy, B., Paulozzi, L., Mack, K. A., & Jones, C. M. (2015). Trends in Opioid Analgesic–Prescribing Rates by Specialty, U.S., 2007–2012. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.020
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.