Sex differences in outcomes of methadone maintenance treatment for opioid addiction: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction is an effective harm-reduction approach, although variability in treatment outcomes among individuals has been reported. Men and women with opioid addiction have been known to differ in factors such as opioid use patterns and characteristics at treatment entry; however, little has been reported about differences in methadone treatment outcomes between men and women. Therefore, we present a protocol for a systematic review which aims to provide a summary of existing literature on sex differences in outcomes of methadone treatment for opioid addiction. METHODS/DESIGN: Electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases will be conducted using a priori defined search strategy. Two authors (MB and BBD) will independently screen potential articles for eligibility using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria and extract key information using a data extraction form designed for this study. Discrepancies will be resolved using a third party (ZS). The primary outcome will be sex differences in response to treatment defined as abstinence from illicit opioid use. We will also assess sex differences in treatment outcomes including treatment retention, remission status post-treatment, polysubstance abuse, methadone dose, drug-related adverse events, health status, psychological status, mortality, criminal activity, high risk sexual behavior, social support/relations, and employment. A meta-analysis will be conducted if possible; risk of bias and overall quality of evidence will be assessed to determine confidence in the estimates. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that this review will highlight how men and women differ in methadone treatment outcomes and allow us to generate conclusions that can be applied to treatment in a clinical setting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013006549.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".