Sex differences in outcomes of methadone maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder: a systematic reviewand meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a serious international concern with limited treatment success. Men and women differ in their susceptibility to opioid use disorder and response to methadone treatment and can therefore benefit from sex-specific treatment. We performed a systematic review of the literature on outcomes of methadone maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder in men and women related to drug use, health status and social functioning. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for observational or randomized controlled studies involving adults 18 years of age or older undergoing methadone treatment for opioid use disorder. Studies were included if they investigated sex differences in methadone treatment outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed when possible; risk of bias and quality of evidence were also assessed. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 9732 participants were included, of which 18 were observational and 2 were randomized controlled trials. Men and women differed significantly in alcohol use (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.86), amphetamine use (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.94), legal involvement (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84) and employment during treatment (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.73). Opioid use patterns were similar among men and women. Risk of bias was moderate, and quality of evidence was generally low. INTERPRETATION: Sex differences were evident in polysubstance use, legal involvement and employment status among men and women receiving methadone treatment for opioid use disorders. Although the quality of evidence was low, our review highlights the need for improved implementation of sex-specific treatment strategies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".