SynthesisSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2025
The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS) and substance use disorders: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with computerized cognitive training improves global cognition and functional independence post-stroke: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- High-density lipoprotein (HDL) in older patients with schizophrenia: implications for clinical and cognitive outcomes.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development of a practical predictive nomogram for cognitive impairment risk following traumatic brain injury: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Effect of esketamine and etomidate anesthesia on neuroplasticity in electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive deficits are prevalent among substance use disorder (SUD) patients and affect treatment retention and outcome. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a well-researched instrument in diverse patient groups and has the potential to serve as an effective and accurate method for identifying cognitive impairment in SUD patients. This systematic review examines the RBANS' ability to detect cognitive impairment in SUD patients. Limitations of knowledge and the need for further research are discussed.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search using PsycINFO, Medline, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies and articles on applying RBANS in SUD. No time limits were imposed on the search. Search words were RBANS, substance use disorder, drug use disorder, and alcohol use disorder, and the most common specific types of drugs (e.g., opiates, cannabis, and methamphetamine).
resultsA systematic search identified 232 articles, of which 17 were found eligible and included in the review. Most studies examined patient groups using either alcohol, methamphetamine, or opioids. The results are presented in the form of a narrative review. We identified some evidence that the RBANS can detect group differences between SUD patients and healthy controls, but the findings were somewhat inconsistent. The literature search revealed little information about cognitive profiles, reliability, factor structure, and construct and criterion validity.
conclusionsThe evidence concerning the validity and usefulness of the RBANS in SUD populations is scarce. Future research should investigate cognitive profiles, reliability, factor structure, and construct and criterion validity.
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.