Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37055851›Full record

ReviewAddiction science & clinical practice2023

Substance use disorder bridge clinics: models, evidence, and future directions.

Jessica L Taylor, Sarah E Wakeman, Alexander Y Walley, Laura G Kehoe

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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 1 country.

Jessica L TaylorSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Jessica.Taylor@bmc.org.ORCID 0000-0001-5256-0796
Sarah E WakemanDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Alexander Y WalleySection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Laura G KehoeDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Boston University · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe opioid overdose and polysubstance use crises have led to the development of low-barrier, transitional substance use disorder (SUD) treatment models, including bridge clinics. Bridge clinics offer immediate access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other SUD treatment and are increasingly numerous. However, given relatively recent implementation, the clinical impact of bridge clinics is not well described.

methodsIn this narrative review, we describe existing bridge clinic models, services provided, and unique characteristics, highlighting how bridge clinics fill critical gaps in the SUD care continuum. We discuss available evidence for bridge clinic effectiveness in care delivery, including retention in SUD care. We also highlight gaps in available data.

resultsThe first era of bridge clinic implementation has yielded diverse models united in the mission to lower barriers to SUD treatment entry, and preliminary data indicate success in patient-centered program design, MOUD initiation, MOUD retention, and SUD care innovation. However, data on effectiveness in linking to long-term care are limited.

conclusionsBridge clinics represent a critical innovation, offering on-demand access to MOUD and other services. Evaluating the effectiveness of bridge clinics in linking patients to long-term care settings remains an important research priority; however, available data show promising rates of treatment initiation and retention, potentially the most important metric amidst an increasingly dangerous drug supply.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineOpiate OverdoseOpioid-Related DisordersAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnalgesics, OpioidChildContinuity of Patient CareFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornOpiate Substitution TreatmentPerinatal CarePregnancyAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineAddictionBridge clinicBuprenorphineMethadoneOpioid use disorder

Identifiers

PMID37055851
PMCPMC10101823
OpenAlexW4365479143

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.