Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26035085›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Interventions for female drug-using offenders.

Amanda E Perry, Matthew Neilson, Marrissa Martyn-St James, Julie M Glanville, Rebecca Woodhouse, Catherine Hewitt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for female drug-using offenders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda E PerryDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD.
Matthew Neilson
Marrissa Martyn-St James
Julie M Glanville
Rebecca Woodhouse
Catherine Hewitt
University of York · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. SEARCH

methodsWe searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN

resultsNine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThree of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineCase ManagementCognitive Behavioral TherapyCrimeCriminalsFemaleHumansLaw EnforcementNarcotic AntagonistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSex FactorsSubstance-Related DisordersTherapeutic CommunityBuprenorphineNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID26035085
OpenAlexW1563797098

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.