ArticleSubstance use & addiction journal2025
The Unsolved Problem of Attrition Rates on Randomized Clinical Trials for Cocaine Use Disorders: A Scoping Review.
Article in Substance use & addiction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing and evaluating a technology-based intervention to address deep ambivalence about COVID vaccination among people who inject drugs.Health education research · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant and insufficiently studied public health issue, especially considering that the global prevalence of CUD is estimated to be higher than ever. There is still no consensus on effective treatments for CUD. Important barriers for research in the field include the high attrition levels observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CUD treatment and the lack of emphasis on methods to reduce attrition in CUD RCTs.
methodsThe goal of this study was to systematically review over 2 decades of CUD RCTs, with the objective of evaluating the reporting of attrition bias and methods used to mitigate attrition.
resultsOur scoping review extracted information from 106 RCTs, of which only 82 explicitly evaluated attrition as an outcome. Thirty-eight studies had an attrition rate above 50%, and five 16 studies had medium attrition bias, 6% to 19%. The remaining 68 had large attrition bias.
conclusionAcross all included studies, discussion of attrition as a limitation was uncommon. Overall, these analyses suggest that most RCTs evaluating CUD treatments have not adequately accounted for attrition in their analyses or employed approaches to mitigate attrition.
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.