ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2023
Psychodynamic Therapies for the Treatment of Substance Addictions: A PRISMA Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare psychodynamic with other treatments in studies of substance addiction. The literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cohcrane library, SCOPUS, and Onesearch databases. All studies comparing psychodynamic therapy with other types of psychological interventions for Substance Use Disorder were eligible. Three outcomes were considered to compare intervention performance: substance use, participation in treatment and other symptomatic conditions (OSCs). Hedges' G was used to measure effect size. The Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess quality of evidence and possible bias, Egger regression analyses for publication bias, and Q and I-square statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. The alcohol group showed no differences between treatments on the three outcomes. The cocaine group showed no significant differences in the two outcomes, while for OSCs, available data was insufficient. The opioids group showed small but significant differences regarding participation in favor of non-psychodynamic interventions and no significant results for other outcomes. Based on the three measures of recovery considered in this meta-analysis, psychodynamic interventions were shown to be as effective as other psychological treatments in treating substance dependence and proved to be an empirically-supported treatment for the above addictions.
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.