ReviewAlcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire)2026
A meta-review of the evidence on addiction recovery mutual help organizations.
Review in Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMutual help organizations (MHOs) for alcohol and substance use disorders are peer-based programs offering recovery-specific social support. A wide-ranging, diverse body of published MHO literature examines their clinical and public health utility. We conducted a meta-review ("overview of reviews") to synthesize this evidence and identify trends, limitations, and gaps across existing syntheses.
methodsWe searched five electronic databases (August 2023) using tailored search strings to identify reviews of MHOs. We coded review characteristics and quality ratings (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) in duplicate and quantified overlap of primary studies [corrected covered area (CCA)].
resultsTwenty-five reviews (one scoping, 15 systematic, and 9 meta-analyses) were included, encompassing 163 111 participants and 645 unique primary studies, with minimal overlap (CCA = 1.76%). Overall methodological quality was mixed. Most reviews focused on 12-step MHOs/12-step facilitation (20; 80%), particularly Alcoholics Anonymous (13; 52%). Few focused on adolescents (2), individuals with co-occurring disorders (3), or Indigenous populations (1). Over half (56%) did not report race/ethnicity; those that did reported ranges from 0% to 81% White (M = 58.4%). Sex/gender was reported in 48% (M = 71.5% male). All meta-analyses examined alcohol and/or other substance use outcomes; some also assessed related outcomes, e.g. social connection, physical/mental health, education/employment, criminal justice involvement, and cost-effectiveness/healthcare utilization.
conclusionsDespite numerous reviews, the synthesis literature is limited in methodological rigor, with a narrow focus on 12-step MHOs. Reporting of outcomes and demographic data is inconsistent, but improves over time. Given variation in individuals' recovery pathways, future syntheses should examine newer, non-12-step MHOs, distinct populations, and outcomes beyond alcohol/substance use behaviors.
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.