CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 954Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseAnesthesia and Pain Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Characteristics of initial prescription episodes and likelihood of long-term opioid use—United States, 2006–2015.

Open access
Shah, Anuj, Hayes, Corey J., Martin, Bradley C.·2017·MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
DOI 10.15585/mmwr.mm6610a1PMC PMC5657867
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Because long-term opioid use often begins with treatment of acute pain (1), in March 2016, the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain included recommendations for the duration of opioid therapy for acute pain and the type of opioid to select when therapy is initiated (2). However, data quantifying the transition from acute to chronic opioid use are lacking. Patient records from the IMS Lifelink+ database were analyzed to characterize the first episode of opioid use among commercially insured, opioid-naïve, cancer-free adults and quantify the increase in probability of long-term use of opioids with each additional day supplied, day of therapy, or incremental increase in cumulative dose. The largest increments in probability of continued use were observed after the fifth and thirty-first days on therapy; the second prescription; 700 morphine milligram equivalents cumulative dose; and first prescriptions with 10- and 30-day supplies. By providing quantitative evidence on risk for long-term use based on initial prescribing characteristics, these findings might inform opioid prescribing practices.

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 · 10.15585/mmwr.mm6610a1

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 One- and 3-year probabilities of continued opioid use among opioid-naïve patients, by number of days’ supply* of the first opioid prescription — United States, 2006–2015 * Days’ supply of the first prescription is expressed in days (1–40) in 1-day increments. If a patient had multiple prescriptions on the first day, the prescription with the longest days’ supply was considered the first prescription.
FIGURE 1 One- and 3-year probabilities of continued opioid use among opioid-naïve patients, by number of days’ supply* of the first opioid prescription — United States, 2006–2015 * Days’ supply of the first prescription is expressed in days (1–40) in 1-day increments. If a patient had multiple prescriptions on the first day, the prescription with the longest days’ supply was considered the first prescription.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 One- and 3-year probabilities of continued opioid use among opioid-naïve patients, by number of prescriptions* in the first episode of opioid use — United States, 2006–2015 * Number of prescriptions is expressed as 1–15, in increments of one prescription.
FIGURE 2 One- and 3-year probabilities of continued opioid use among opioid-naïve patients, by number of prescriptions* in the first episode of opioid use — United States, 2006–2015 * Number of prescriptions is expressed as 1–15, in increments of one prescription.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 954

Related

Metadata

Authors
Shah, A., Hayes, C. J., & Martin, B. C.
Affiliations
Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (US)
Corresponding author
Shah, Anuj
ORCID
Venue
MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Publisher
Centers for Disease Control MMWR Office
Published
2017-03-17
Volume
66
Issue
10
Pages
265-269
ISSN
  • 0149-2195 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-861X
DOI
10.15585/mmwr.mm6610a1
PMC
PMC5657867
OpenAlex
W2596617588
Cited by
954
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 153 · 2019: 155 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 38
FWCI
119.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA022981)
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 › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
chronic opioid use, acute pain, chronic pain, opioid prescribing, morphine milligram equivalents, prescription duration, private insurance, opioid prescribing guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S., Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Drug Prescriptions, Risk, Time Factors, United States, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Chronic Pain, Acute 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