Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21713605›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2012

A direct comparison of the behavioral and physiological effects of methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in humans.

Matthew G Kirkpatrick, Erik W Gunderson, Audrey Y Perez, Margaret Haney, Richard W Foltin, Carl L Hart

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Efficacy of psychostimulant drugs for amphetamine abuse or dependence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. LSD Acutely Impairs Fear Recognition and Enhances Emotional Empathy and Sociality.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2016
    Trial
  8. Intimate insight: MDMA changes how people talk about significant others.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2015
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew G KirkpatrickDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Erik W Gunderson
Audrey Y Perez
Margaret Haney
Richard W Foltin
Carl L Hart
Columbia University · US

Funding

Clinical and Preclinical Models in Drug Abuse: Training and DevelopmentK05DA031749 · NIDA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI FOLTIN, RICHARD W · 2011 to 2015
$641k
NIDA NIH HHS DA-03746NIDA NIH HHS K05 DA031749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleDespite their chemical similarities, methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) produce differing neurochemical and behavioral responses in animals. In humans, individual studies of methamphetamine and MDMA indicate that the drugs engender overlapping and divergent effects; there are only limited data comparing the two drugs in the same individuals.

objectivesThis study examined the effects of methamphetamine and MDMA using a within-subject design.

methodsEleven adult volunteers completed this 13-day residential laboratory study, which consisted of four 3-day blocks of sessions. On the first day of each block, participants received oral methamphetamine (20, 40 mg), MDMA (100 mg), or placebo. Drug plasma concentrations, cardiovascular, subjective, and cognitive/psychomotor performance effects were assessed before drug administration and after. Food intake and sleep were also assessed. On subsequent days of each block, placebo was administered and residual effects were assessed.

resultsAcutely, both drugs increased cardiovascular measures and "positive" subjective effects and decreased food intake. In addition, when asked to identify each drug, participants had difficulty distinguishing between the amphetamines. The drugs also produced divergent effects: methamphetamine improved performance and disrupted sleep, while MDMA increased "negative" subjective-effect ratings. Few residual drug effects were noted for either drug.

conclusionsIt is possible that the differences observed could explain the differential public perception and abuse potential associated with these amphetamines. Alternatively, the route of administration by which the drugs are used recreationally might account for the many of the effects attributed to these drugs (i.e., MDMA is primarily used orally, whereas methamphetamine is used by routes associated with higher abuse potential).

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultCognitionEatingFemaleHumansMaleMethamphetamineN-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetaminePsychomotor PerformanceSleepYoung AdultMethamphetamineN-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine

Identifiers

PMID21713605
PMCPMC4430833
OpenAlexW2050392483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.