Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2009
A double-blind, randomized, parallel group study to compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in opioid-dependent in-patients willing to undergo detoxification.
Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Slow-release oral morphine as maintenance therapy for opioid dependence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Slow-release oral morphine for opioid maintenance treatment: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Pooled it
- Pharmacological strategies for detoxification.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Review
- Newer approaches to opioid detoxification.Industrial psychiatry journal · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedSpitzer, Berhard [corrected to Spitzer, Bernhard]
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsEvaluation of the efficacy and safety of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) compared with methadone for detoxification from methadone and SROM maintenance treatment.
designRandomized, double-blind, double-dummy, comparative multi-centre study with parallel groups.
settingThree psychiatric hospitals in Austria specializing in in-patient detoxification.
participantsMale and female opioid dependents (age > 18 years) willing to undergo detoxification from maintenance therapy in order to reach abstinence.
interventionsAbstinence was reached from maintenance treatment by tapered dose reduction of either SROM or methadone over a period of 16 days. MEASUREMENTS: Efficacy analyses were based on the number of patients per treatment group completing the study, as well as on the control of signs and symptoms of withdrawal [measured using Short Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS)] and suppression of opiate craving. In addition, self-reported somatic and psychic symptoms (measured using Symptom Checklist SCL-90-R) were monitored.
findingsOf the 208 patients enrolled into the study, 202 were eligible for analysis (SROM: n = 102, methadone: n = 100). Completion rates were 51% in the SROM group and 49% in the methadone group [difference between groups: 2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -12% to 16%]. The rate of discontinuation in the study was high mainly because of patients voluntarily withdrawing from treatment. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were found in terms of signs and symptoms of opiate withdrawal, craving for opiates or self-reported symptoms. SROM and methadone were both well tolerated.
conclusionsDetoxification from maintenance treatment with tapered dose reduction of SROM is non-inferior to methadone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.