↓ 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
331 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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 Further studies were searched through: letters to the authors of selected trials or to experts in order to obtain unpublished data.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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Other 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 26 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 43%
Psychology 14 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 33 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,620,795
of 17,036,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,072
of 11,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,747
of 295,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,036,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 295,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.