ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2020
Ranking evidence in substance use and addiction.
Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- THE GENDER SEGREGATION OF PRECARIOUS WORK CONTEXTS AMONG PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS.International journal of mental health and addiction · 2026Article
- "The hardest part of what we're doing": research staff perspectives on engaging marginalized populations in substance use trials.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Article
- Study assessing the effectiveness of overdose prevention centers through research (SAFER): an overview of the study protocol.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Management of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.International journal of mental health and addiction · 2025Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people who use drugs in three Canadian cities: a cross-sectional analysis.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic marginalization and risk of overdose in a community-recruited cohort of people who use drugs: A longitudinal analysis.The International journal on drug policy · 2023Observational
- Health impacts of a scale-up of supervised injection services in a Canadian setting: an interrupted time series analysis.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine has consistently prized the epistemological value of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) owing to their methodological advantages over alternative designs such as observational studies. However, there are limitations to RCTs that hinder their ability to study chronic and dynamic conditions such as substance use and addiction. For these conditions, observational studies may provide superior evidence based on methodological and practical strengths. Assuming epistemic superiority of RCTs has led to an inappropriate devaluation of other study designs and the findings they support, including support for harm reduction services, especially needle exchange programs and supervised injection facilities. The value offered by observational studies should be reflected in evidence-based medicine by allowing more flexibility in evidence hierarchies that presume methodological superiority of RCTs. Despite the popularity of evidence ranking systems and hierarchies, nothing should replace critical appraisal of study methodology and examining the suitability of applying a given study design to a specific research question.
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.