SynthesisBMC public health2025
Oral and injectable opioid agonist treatments for people who use street opioids: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesize and determine the relative effectiveness of diverse opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medications, including injectables, for opioid use disorder (OUD).
methodsWe searched EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CRD42018109469) and previously published systematic reviews of head-to-head trials of OAT medications. The primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcomes included days of opioid use, days of cocaine use, and proportion of participants involved in criminalized activities. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly compare treatments at varying lengths of follow-up (3 to 12 months). Sensitivity analyses examined influence of follow-up duration and other trial factors.
resultsTwenty-four RCTs were included. Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone and injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone had similar retention compared to one another (OR: 1.05; 95%CrI: 0.27, 4.10). Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone had similar or statistically favourable retention versus low, medium, and high doses of conventional OATs: buprenorphine (OR: 13.55; 95%CrI: 4.51, 42.52; OR: 5.07; 95%CrI: 2.03, 12.47; OR: 2.21; 95%CrI: 0.18, 21.54) and methadone (OR: 5.88; 95%CrI: 2.34, 16.33; OR: 3.66; 95%CrI: 1.57, 8.82; OR: 3.67; 95%CrI: 1.83, 8.35). Similarly, injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone also showed favourable or similar retention relative to conventional OATs. Limiting analyses to trials that included only OAT-experienced patients, that offered no extra participation incentive, and/or with 6 months (± 0.5) of follow-up generally did not change the direction of the findings. Injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone was also statistically favoured in terms of reduced days of opioid use relative to methadone, but mean differences in days of cocaine use were similar. Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone was associated with a smaller proportion of participation in criminalized activities relative to methadone alone.
conclusionBoth diacetylmorphine and injectable hydromorphone supplemented with methadone showed favourable retention compared to methadone and buprenorphine, depending on the strength of the OAT being co-prescribed or being compared to. These results provide further support for alternatives to conventional OATs such as diacetylmorphine or injectable hydromorphone for treatment retention.
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.