↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Efficacy and safety of psychostimulants for amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Efficacy and safety of psychostimulants for amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0370-x
Pubmed ID
27842569
Authors

Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Lola Baker-Beal, Neera Bhatnagar, Natalia Mouravska, Phillip Laplante, Andrew Worster, Lehana Thabane, Zainab Samaan

Abstract

Amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders are associated with severe health and social consequences. No pharmacological therapy has been approved for the treatment of these disorders. Psychostimulants can act as maintenance-like therapies for managing substance use among these patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature examining the efficacy and safety of psychostimulant agents for increasing abstinence and treatment retention among patients with amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL from inception to August 2016. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. We conducted meta-analyses to provide a pooled summary estimate for included trials and report the review according to PRISMA guidelines. We identified and selected 17 studies with 1387 participants. Outcome reporting across trials was inconsistent, and the overall quality of evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and indirectness. A meta-analysis of five trials (642 participants) found no effect of psychostimulants for end-of-study abstinence (odds ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.45). Additionally, the pooled estimate from 14 studies (1184 participants) showed no effect of psychostimulants for treatment retention (odds ratio = 1.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.91 to 1.58). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between intervention and placebo groups based on qualitative reports from trials. Quantitative analyses showed no effect of psychostimulants for sustained abstinence or treatment retention. We also identified the need for more rigorous studies in this research area with clinician and patient important outcomes.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Psychology 11 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,350,582
of 8,664,483 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#502
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,404
of 240,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,664,483 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 240,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.