Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28851586›Full record

ReviewPharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior2018

Clinical models of decision making in addiction.

Mikhail N Koffarnus, Brent A Kaplan

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review and meta-analysis of delay discounting and cannabis use.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mikhail N KoffarnusVirginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, 2 Riverside Circle, Roanoke, VA 24016, United States. Electronic address: mickyk@vtc.vt.edu.
Brent A KaplanVirginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, 2 Riverside Circle, Roanoke, VA 24016, United States.
Virginia Tech · US

Funding

Abuse liability of reduced nicotine content cigarettes within a complex tobacco marketplaceR01DA042535 · NIDA · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI BICKEL, WARREN K, KOFFARNUS, MIKHAIL NIKOLAAS · 2016 to 2018
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As research on decision making in addiction accumulates, it is increasingly clear that decision-making processes are dysfunctional in addiction and that this dysfunction may be fundamental to the initiation and maintenance of addictive behavior. How drug-dependent individuals value and choose among drug and nondrug rewards is consistently different from non-dependent individuals. The present review focuses on the assessment of decision-making in addiction. We cover the common behavioral tasks that have shown to be fruitful in decision-making research and highlight analytical and graphical considerations, when available, to facilitate comparisons within and among studies. Delay discounting tasks, drug demand tasks, drug choice tasks, the Iowa Gambling Task, and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task are included.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, PsychologicalBehavior, AddictiveGamblingHumansBalloon Analogue Risk TaskDecision-makingDelay discountingDrug choiceDrug demandIowa Gambling Task

Identifiers

PMID28851586
PMCPMC5747979
OpenAlexW2749536332

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.