MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896199542 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023902

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for persons receiving opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: protocol for a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2896199542 on OpenAlexafffund
Danielle B. Rice, Brian Hutton, Patricia A. Poulin, Beth Sproule, Dianna Wolfe, David Moher, Kednapa Thavorn, Gary Garber, Sheena Taha, Amy Porath, Melanie Willows, Leila Esmaeilisaraji, Fatemeh Yazdi, Beverley Shea, Becky Skidmore, Kimberly Corace

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre on Substance Use and AddictionPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialOpioid use disorderPsychological interventionPsycINFOPsychiatryOpioidAbstinenceMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The opioid crisis has resulted in increasing rates of death caused by problematic opioid use. Current clinical guidelines recommend that individuals with persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological (eg, opioid agonist therapy) and psychosocial (eg, cognitive behavioural therapy) therapy; however, the best combination of pharmacologic and psychosocial components is not known. Our objective of the planned study is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy among persons with OUD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials published in English or French will be conducted from database inception to March 2018. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE and translated for Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent reviewers will screen, extract and assess risk of bias of eligible articles. Primary outcomes of interest will be treatment retention and opioid use (based on urinalysis results). Secondary outcomes will include self-reported opioid use, abstinence from illicit drugs, adherence to psychosocial therapy and opioid agonist therapy, risk for sexually transmitted disease, risk for blood borne pathogens, changes in mental health symptoms (eg, depression), measures of craving and changes in patients' quality of life and relevant adverse events. If sufficient data and adequate homogeneity exists, network meta-analyses (NMA) will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This will be the first systematic review to incorporate NMA to compare psychosocial treatments used as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Results of this review will inform clinical management of persons with OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090761.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.028
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.411
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→