Trial reportThe Journal of clinical psychiatry2017
Toward National Estimates of Effectiveness of Treatment for Substance Use.
Trial report in The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generalizability of the findings from a randomized controlled trial of a web-based substance use disorder intervention.The American journal on addictions · 2018Trial
- Under-representation of key demographic groups in opioid use disorder trials.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2022Article
- Data needs and models for the opioid epidemic.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
- Comparing the performance of statistical methods that generalize effect estimates from randomized controlled trials to much larger target populations.Communications in statistics: Simulation and computation · 2022Article
- The relationship of frequency of cocaine use to substance and psychiatric disorders in the U.S. general population.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate how results would have varied if a substance abuse clinical trial had been conducted with nationally representative adults with substance use and with representative adults receiving substance use treatment.
methodsResults were analyzed from a multisite clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of the Therapeutic Education System to treatment as usual for outpatient addiction treatment (n = 507). Patients were recruited between June 2010 and August 2011. Abstinence was the primary outcome. The general population sample and general population-treated samples were derived from Wave 1 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) (n = 43,093). Propensity scores provided a standardized measure of the difference between clinical trial participants and the 2 NESARC samples. The clinical trial was reanalyzed by reweighting the sample with propensity scores derived from the 2 samples to obtain generalizable estimates of treatment effects.
resultsBefore the clinical trial sample was reweighted, the odds ratio (OR) of response to Therapeutic Education System versus treatment as usual in the trial was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.12-2.35). After the sample was reweighted to be representative of the 2 NESARC groups, ORs were 1.33 (95% CI, 0.34-5.26) for the representative sample with any substance use and 1.64 (95% CI, 0.82-3.27) for the representative treated sample.
conclusionsApplying propensity score weighting to clinical trial results provides a method for estimating the population generalizability of clinical trial findings that relies on effect moderators observed in the study sample and population. Broader confidence intervals in the reweighted samples do not necessarily indicate lack of efficacy of the Therapeutic Education System but rather greater uncertainty concerning effectiveness in general population samples.
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.