Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 528

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Time to Take Stock: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Analgesic Treatment Disparities for Pain in the United States

Meghani, Salimah H., Byun, Eeeseung, Gallagher, Rollin M.·2012·Pain Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent Institute of Medicine Report assessing the state of pain care in the United States acknowledged the lack of consistent data to describe the nature and magnitude of unrelieved pain and identify subpopulations with disproportionate burdens. OBJECTIVES: We synthesized 20 years of cumulative evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in analgesic treatment for pain in the United States. Evidence was examined for the 1) magnitude of association between race/ethnicity and analgesic treatment; 2) subgroups at an increased risk; and 3) the effect of moderators (pain type, setting, study quality, and data collection period) on this association. METHODS: United States studies with at least one explicit aim or analysis comparing analgesic treatment for pain between Whites and a minority group were included (SciVerse Scopus database, 1989-2011). RESULTS: Blacks/African Americans experienced both a higher number and magnitude of disparities than any other group in the analyses. Opioid treatment disparities were ameliorated for Hispanics/Latinos for "traumatic/surgical" pain (P = 0.293) but remained for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.77, P = 0.000). For Blacks/African Americans, opioid prescription disparities were present for both types of pain and were starker for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.59-0.75, P = 0.000). In subanalyses, opioid treatment disparities for Blacks/African Americans remained consistent across pain types, settings, study quality, and data collection periods. CONCLUSION: Our study quantifies the magnitude of analgesic treatment disparities in subgroups of minorities. The size of the difference was sufficiently large to raise not only normative but quality and safety concerns. The treatment gap does not appear to be closing with time or existing policy initiatives. A concerted strategy is needed to reduce pain care disparities within the larger quality of care initiatives.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01310.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 528

Metadata

Authors
Meghani, S. H., Byun, E., & Gallagher, R. M.
Venue
Pain Medicine
Published
2012-02
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
150-174
ISSN
  • 1526-2375 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4637
OpenAlex
W2118630425
Cited by
528
References
5
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Time to Take Stock: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Analgesic Treatment Disparities for Pain in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01310.x
The paper
Meghani, S. H., Byun, E., & Gallagher, R. M. (2012). Time to Take Stock: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Analgesic Treatment Disparities for Pain in the United States. Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01310.x

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.