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
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.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Defining racial and ethnic disparities in pain management
Mossey, J. M. (2011) · Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1770-9 · Cited by 353
Meghani, S. H., Polomano, R. C., Tait, R. C., Vallerand, A. H., Anderson, K. O., & Gallagher, R. M. (2012) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01289.x · Cited by 124
Self-citation
Cited by
Delgado, C., Baweja, M., Crews, D. C., Eneanya, N. D., Gadegbeku, C. A., Inker, L. A., Mendu, M. L., Miller, W. G., Moxey-Mims, M. M., Roberts, G. V., et al. (2022) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.08.003 · Cited by 783
Thomson, A. M., McHugh, T. A., Oron, A. P., Teply, C., Lonberg, N., Vilchis Tella, V., Wilner, L. B., Fuller, K., Hagins, H., Aboagye, R. G., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Haematology · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(23)00118-7 · Cited by 747
Delgado, C., Baweja, M., Crews, D. C., Eneanya, N. D., Gadegbeku, C. A., Inker, L. A., Mendu, M. L., Miller, W. G., Moxey-Mims, M. M., Roberts, G. V., et al. (2021) · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.1681/asn.2021070988 · Cited by 423
Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults
Bazargan, M., Cobb, S., & Assari, S. (2021) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2632 · Cited by 404
The Opioid Crisis in Black Communities
James, K., & Jordan, A. (2018) · Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1177/1073110518782949 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Meghani, S. H., Byun, E., & Gallagher, R. M.
- Venue
- Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.