↓ Skip to main content

Methadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
374 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabrizio Faggiano, Federica Vigna‐Taglianti, Elisabetta Versino, Patrizia Lemma

Abstract

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is a long term opioid replacement therapy, recognised as effective in the management of opioid dependence. Even if MMT at high dosage is recommended as therapy for reducing illicit opioid use and promoting longer retention in treatment, at present day "the organisation and regulation of the methadone maintenance treatment varies widely". To evaluate the efficacy of different dosages of MMT for opioid dependence in modifying health and social outcomes and in promoting patients' familial, occupational and relational functioning. The following sources were scanned: - MEDLINE (OVID 1966-2001)- EMBASE (1988-2001)- ERIC (1988-2001)- Psychinfo (1947-2001)- Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) (1947-2001)- Register of the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group (CDAG) (1947-2001)The CDAG search strategy was applied together with a specific MESH strategy. Further studies were searched through: letters to the authors of selected trials or to experts in order to obtain unpublished data. check of references of relevant reviews. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) and Controlled Prospective Studies (CPS) evaluating methadone maintenance at different dosages in the management of opioid dependence were included in the review. Non-randomised trials were included when proper adjustment for confounding factors was performed at the analysis stage. Extraction of data was performed separately by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. RevMan software was used for analysis. Quality assessments of the methodology of studies were carried out using CDAG checklist. 22 studies were excluded from the review. 21 studies were included; of them, 11 were RCTs with 2279 people randomised and 10 were CPSs with 3715 people followed-up. Retention rate - RCTs: High vs low doses at shorter follow-ups: RR=1.36 [1.13,1.63], and at longer ones: RR=1.62 [0.95,2.77]. Opioid use (self reported), times/w - RCTs: high vs low doses WMD= -2.00 [-4.77,0.77] high vs middle doses WMD= -1.89[-3.43, -0.35] Opioid abstinence, (urine based) at >3-4 w - RCTs: high vs low ones: RR=1.59 [1.16,2.18] high vs middle doses RR=1.51[0.63,3.61] Cocaine abstinence (urine based) at >3-4 w - RCTs: high vs low doses RR=1.81 [1.15,2.85]Overdose mortality - CPSs: high dose vs low dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.29 [0.02-5.34] high dose vs middle dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.38 [0.02-9.34] middle dose vs low dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.57 [0.06-5.06] Methadone dosages ranging from 60 to 100 mg/day are more effective than lower dosages in retaining patients and in reducing use of heroin and cocaine during treatment. To find the optimal dose is a clinical ability, but clinician must consider these conclusions in treatment strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 224 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 18%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Other 15 7%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 62 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 38%
Psychology 21 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 71 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,292,194
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,707
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,279
of 54,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 54,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.