Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids
research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from
1986
Abstract
Rationale, aims, and objectives: Portenoy and Foley’s 1986 landmark
study “Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report
of 38 cases” has been reproached for opening the floodgates of opioid
prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain and the attendant harms. This
influential article has been cited over 500 times in the scientific
literature over the last four decades. This study seeks to understand
the impact of Portenoy and Foley’s article on subsequent discussions and
research about opioids. Methods: We conducted a multi-method
bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through
2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to
determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and
associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship
to the evolution of the North American opioid crises. Results: Using
time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct
interpretations and uses of the index study. In the first
“exploration” period (1986-1996), the index study was well-received by
the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of
opioids. In the second “implementation” period (1997-2003, coinciding
with the release of OxyContin®), this study was used as evidence to
support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was
recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third
“reassessment” period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms
had been overlooked, and in many cases these harms were directly
attributed to this study. Conclusion: These changes in interpretation
demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence
regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are
impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such
as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these
shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge,
including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.