Community detoxification for alcohol dependence: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUES: Despite the potential advantages of community detoxification for alcohol dependence, in many countries the available resources are mostly focused on specialist services that are resource-intensive, and often difficult to access because of financial or geographical factors. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the existing literature about the management of alcohol detoxification in the community to examine its effectiveness, safety, acceptability and feasibility. APPROACH: The systematic review was guided by an a priori defined protocol consistent with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Cochrane library, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health and CINAHL databases were searched using appropriate search terms. A qualitative synthesis of the data was conducted as the heterogeneity of study designs, samples and outcomes measured precluded a meta-analyses. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty studies with a range of designs were eligible for the review. Community detoxification had high completion rates and was reported to be safe. Compared to patients undergoing facility based detoxification, those who underwent community detoxification had better drinking outcomes. Community detoxification was cheaper than facility based detoxification and generally had good acceptability by various stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS: For certain patients, community detoxification should be considered as a viable option to increase access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current evidence base to some extent supports the case for community detoxification there is a need for more randomised controlled trials testing the cost effectiveness of community detoxification in comparison with inpatient detoxification. [Nadkarni A, Endsley P, Bhatia U, Fuhr DC, Noorani A, Naik A, Murthy P, Velleman R. Community detoxification for alcohol dependence: A systematic review Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:389-399].
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 | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".