Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18429655›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2008

Economic evaluation of interventions to treat opiate dependence : a review of the evidence.

Christopher M Doran

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Cost per Opioid-Free Year: A Systematic Review and Summary Analysis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Economic Evaluations of Pharmacologic Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christopher M DoranNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre , University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. c.doran@unsw.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opiate dependence imposes a significant economic burden on society in terms of treatment-related costs and prevention services, other healthcare costs, the work absenteeism of patients, productivity loss arising from premature death of patients, costs associated with crime, and social welfare expenditure. The objective of this research is to review the literature on economic evaluation of treatment of opiate dependence (including detoxification, maintenance and psychosocial support).A literature review was performed on several electronic databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Library Database (via Cochrane Library), Web of Science, Social Science Citations Index, EMBASE and PsycINFO. A sensitive approach was used in order to maximize the number of articles retrieved; no language or publication year limitations were applied to the searches. A combination of subject heading term searches and natural word searches were used. The Drummond checklist was applied to assess the quality of economic evaluations.A total of 259 articles were considered relevant, with eight review studies identified. The treatment spectrum ranged from detoxification to maintenance treatments involving the use of agonist and/or antagonist treatments. The evidence suggests that, although the quality of economic evaluations is reasonably good, there is a dearth of knowledge about the cost effectiveness of treatments for opiate dependence. The majority of the literature reporting the results of cost-effectiveness analyses used surrogate outcome measures and adopted a narrow treatment provider perspective. Studies that have conducted cost-benefit analyses, in spite of methodological divergences, generally adopted a societal perspective and consistently demonstrated positive economic returns from opiate treatment. A paucity of research examined the extent to which psychosocial or behavioural interventions support or replace conventional pharmacological approaches. Economic evaluation provides a useful framework to assist policy makers in allocating resources across competing needs. Opiate dependence is a considerable burden on society's resources, and treatment provides a cost-beneficial solution to address these consequences. However, to better inform the decision-making process, researchers must continue to produce high-quality, methodological, comparable and scientifically credible economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNarcotic AntagonistsNarcoticsOpioid-Related DisordersNarcotic AntagonistsNarcotics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.