Trial reportThe American journal on addictions2018
Generalizability of the findings from a randomized controlled trial of a web-based substance use disorder intervention.
Trial report in The American journal on addictions, 2018. 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How effective are remote and/or digital interventions as part of alcohol and drug treatment and recovery support? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.Clinical and translational science · 2020Pooled it
- Enhancing the psychological well-being and sleep quality of healthcare providers with a multimodal psychological support program: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2024Trial
- Generalizability of clinical trial efficacy results to a real-world population: An example in migraine prevention.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThere is growing concern regarding the generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs). This study used a selection model approach to assess and improve the generalizability of an evaluation for a web-based SUD intervention by making the trial sample resemble the target population.
methodsThe sample of the web-based SUD intervention (Therapeutic Education System vs. Treatment-as-usual; n = 507) was compared with the target population of SUD treatment-seeking individuals from the Treatment Episodes Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A). Using weights based on the probabilities of RCT participation, we computed weighted treatment effects on retention and abstinence.
resultsSubstantial differences between the RCT sample and the target population was demonstrated in significant difference in the mean propensity scores (1.62 standard deviations at p < .001). The population effect on abstinence (12 weeks and 6 months) was statistically insignificant after weighting the data with the generalizability weight. DISCUSSIONS AND
conclusionsGeneralizability of the findings from the RCT could be limited when the RCT sample does not well represent the target population. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Application of generalizability weights can be a potentially useful tool to improve generalizability of RCT findings. (Am J Addict 2018;27:231-237).
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.