ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparative effectiveness of maintenance doses of opioid agonist treatment among individuals with opioid use disorder: a target trial emulation protocol using a population-based observational study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological innovations to advance substance use disorder research: Proceedings of a NIDA workshop on target trial emulation and translational testing of digital health tools.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- Risk of opioid overdose during buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder in the fentanyl era.Addictive behaviors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOpioid agonist treatment (OAT) prescribing patterns have shifted in recent years in British Columbia (BC), Canada due to the increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. Experimental evidence to support guidelines on the effectiveness of maintaining clients at different maintenance dosage levels is incomplete and outdated for the fentanyl era. Our objective is to assess the risk of treatment discontinuation and mortality among individuals receiving different maintenance dosage strategies for OAT with methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone or slow-release oral morphine (SROM) at the population level in BC, Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a retrospective population-level study of BC residents initiating OAT on methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone or SROM between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2022 who were ≥18 years of age with no known pregnancy, no history of cancer diagnosis or receiving palliative care and not currently incarcerated. Our study will employ health administrative databases linked at the individual level to emulate a target trial per OAT type where individuals will be assigned to discrete maintenance dosing strategies, according to the full range observed in BC during the study period. Primary outcomes include treatment discontinuation and all-cause mortality. To determine the effectiveness of alternative maintenance doses, we will emulate a 'per-protocol' trial using a clone-censor-weight approach to adjust for measured time-dependent confounding by indication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. All data are deidentified, securely stored and accessed in accordance with provincial privacy regulations. Results will be disseminated and shared with local advocacy groups and decision-makers, developers of national and international clinical guidelines, presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.
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.