Cited by 16Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Dental opioid prescriptions and overdose risk in patients and their families

Open access
Chua, Kao-Ping, Kenney, Brooke C., Waljee, Jennifer F., Brummett, Chad M., Nalliah, Romesh P.·2021·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Introduction It is unknown whether dental opioid prescriptions are associated with opioid overdose in patients or their family members, who may have access to patients' opioids.Methods During July-October 2020, the 2011-2018 IBM MarketScan Dental, IBM MarketScan Commercial, and Medicaid Multi-State Databases were analyzed. Two analyses were conducted. In the patient analysis, dental procedures for privately and publicly insured patients aged 13-64 years were identified. The exposure was ≥1 initial prescription (dispensed opioid prescription within 3 days of the procedure). The association between the exposure and ≥1 overdose within 90 days of the procedure was evaluated using logistic regression. In the family analysis, procedures for privately insured patients in family plans were identified. The association between the exposure and ≥1 overdose in a family member within 90 days was evaluated using logistic regression. In both analyses, the average marginal effect of the exposure was calculated, representing the change in the probability of the outcome if all versus if no procedures were associated with ≥1 initial prescription.Results The patient analysis included 8,544,098 procedures. When ≥1 initial prescription did and did not occur, the 90-day risk of overdose was 5.8 versus 2.2 per 10,000 procedures (average marginal effect=1.5, 95% CI=1.2, 1.8). The family analysis included 3,461,469 procedures. When ≥1 initial prescription did and did not occur, the 90-day risk of overdose in a family member was 1.7 versus 1.0 per 10,000 procedures (average marginal effect=0.4, 95% CI=0.1, 0.7).Conclusions Findings further highlight the importance of avoiding unnecessary dental opioid prescribing.

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 · 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.008

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool for observational studies.

    “using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 for RCTs45 and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool for observational studies46”

    From Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Methods sections describe logistic regression and sensitivity analyses of dental opioid prescriptions, not a risk-of-bias assessment. Searches for ROBINS-I and the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 found no passage addressing either tool; our copy therefore does not substantiate the use attributed to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate.

    “conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 for RCTs45 and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool for observational studies46) independently and in duplicate.”

    From Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Methods (Study Sample and Statistical Analysis; page not available) describe analyses of insurance-claims databases, not selection and assessment of published studies. Searches for duplicate study selection, data extraction, and Cochrane or ROBINS-I risk-of-bias assessment found no passage addressing those procedures. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chua, K.-P., Kenney, B. C., Waljee, J. F., Brummett, C. M., & Nalliah, R. P.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Chua, Kao-Ping
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
165-173
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3158686413
Cited by
16
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse
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
opioid overdose, opioid prescribing, dental treatment, family members, overdose risk, opioid misuse prevention, dental insurance, Medicaid
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Medicaid, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Drug Prescriptions, Retrospective Studies, United States, Prescriptions, Drug Overdose

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