ReviewCanadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie2026
Pharmacological Management of Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Prise en charge pharmacologique du trouble de l'usage des opiacés : revue systématique et méta-analyse en réseau.
Review in Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSATs) for opioid use disorder (OUD) using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Data SourcesMedline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry were searched through 10 August 2025, for trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of any OSAT for people with OUD.Data Extraction and SynthesisPairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Frequentist random-effects NMAs were conducted, and certainty of evidence for treatment effects was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTreatment retention (people remaining in follow-up at study end), opioid abstinence (during follow-up), criminal activity, all-cause mortality, and overdose-related death.ResultsWe included 103 RCTs assessing 13 interventions across 26,624 people with OUD. Compared with placebo, moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that heroin was most effective for treatment retention (Odds Ratio [OR] = 31.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.29,80.58). Heroin + methadone (OR = 8.00; 95% CI = 3.21,19.93) and high-dose methadone (HMET) (OR = 6.94; 95% CI = 3.76, 12.82) also ranked highly (moderate certainty). High- and low-dose buprenorphine (moderate certainty) and HMET (low certainty), improved abstinence as measured by urine drug screens. No intervention reduced criminal activity (moderate certainty), all-cause mortality (low certainty), or overdose-related death.Conclusions and RelevanceHeroin-assisted therapy, alone or with methadone, and HMET were most effective for treatment retention. Buprenorphine and HMET improved abstinence, although certainty was lower. Evidence for mortality, overdose, and other patient-important outcomes remains limited. Heroin-assisted therapy exclusively enrolled people with heroin dependence and should not be initiated in those without prior use. Larger trials directly comparing methadone, buprenorphine, and heroin-assisted therapy, and enrolling patients with fentanyl use, are needed in the evolving toxic drug supply.PROSPERO RegistrationCRD42013006507.
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.