Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35358261›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Relative effectiveness of medications for opioid-related disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jihoon Lim, Imen Farhat, Antonios Douros, Dimitra Panagiotoglou

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Guideline
  4. Management of opioid use disorder: 2024 update to the national clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jihoon LimDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Imen FarhatDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1856-9057
Antonios DourosDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6005-4006
Dimitra PanagiotoglouDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4756-1721
McGill University · CAJewish General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral pharmacotherapeutic interventions are available for maintenance treatment for opioid-related disorders. However, previous meta-analyses have been limited to pairwise comparisons of these interventions, and their efficacy relative to all others remains unclear. Our objective was to unify findings from different healthcare practices and generate evidence to strengthen clinical treatment protocols for the most widely prescribed medications for opioid-use disorders.

methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from database inception to February 12, 2022. Primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcome was opioid use measured by urinalysis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for available evidence. We assessed the credibility of the NMA using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

resultsSeventy-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity in measuring opioid use and reporting format between studies, we conducted NMA only for treatment retention. Methadone was the highest ranked intervention (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking [SUCRA] = 0.901) in the network with control being the lowest (SUCRA = 0.000). Methadone was superior to buprenorphine for treatment retention (RR = 1.22; 95% CrI = 1.06-1.40) and buprenorphine superior to naltrexone (RR = 1.39; 95% CrI = 1.10-1.80). However, due to a limited number of high-quality trials, confidence in the network estimates of other treatment pairs involving naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine (SROM) remains low.

conclusionAll treatments had higher retention than the non-pharmacotherapeutic control group. However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to estimate more accurately the extent of efficacy of naltrexone and SROM relative to other medications. For pharmacotherapies with established efficacy profiles, assessment of their long-term comparative effectiveness may be warranted.

trial registrationThis systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) (identifier CRD42021256212).

Indexed as

BuprenorphineOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidHumansMethadoneMorphineNaltrexoneRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineMethadoneMorphineNaltrexone

Identifiers

PMID35358261
PMCPMC8970369
OpenAlexW4220895732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.