Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25393504›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2015

Compared with what? An analysis of control-group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders.

Patrik Karlsson, Anders Bergmark

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 22 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. The effects of school-based interventions on physiological stress in adolescents: A meta-analysis.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Complex solutions for a complex problem: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of multiple-behavior interventions on change in outcomes related to HIV.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2021
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Patrik KarlssonDepartment of Social Work, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders Bergmark

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA crucial, but under-appreciated, aspect in experimental research on psychosocial treatments of substance use disorders concerns what kinds of control groups are used. This paper examines how the distinction between different control-group designs have been handled by the Cochrane and the Campbell Collaborations in their systematic reviews of psychosocial treatments of substance abuse disorders.

methodsWe assessed Cochrane and Campbell reviews (n = 8) that were devoted to psychosocial treatments of substance use disorders. We noted what control groups were considered and analysed the extent to which the reviews provided a rationale for chosen comparison conditions. We also analysed whether type of control group in the primary studies influenced how the reviews framed the effects discussed and whether this was related to conclusions drawn.

resultsThe reviews covered studies involving widely different control conditions. Overall, little attention was paid to the use of different control groups (e.g. head-to-head comparisons versus untreated controls) and what this implies when interpreting effect sizes. Seven of eight reviews did not provide a rationale for the choice of comparison conditions.

conclusionsCochrane and Campbell reviews of the efficacy of psychosocial interventions with substance use disorders seem to underappreciate that the use of different control-group types yields different effect estimates. Most reviews have not distinguished between different control-group designs and therefore have provided a confused picture regarding absolute and relative treatment efficacy. A systematic approach to treating different control-group designs in research reviews is necessary for meaningful estimates of treatment efficacy.

Indexed as

Control GroupsOutcome Assessment, Health CareReview Literature as TopicHumansSubstance-Related DisordersTreatment Outcomeabsolute effectsActivecontrol groupsinactiverandomized controlled trialsrelative effects

Identifiers

PMID25393504
PMCPMC4374442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.