MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oral and injectable opioid agonist treatments for people who use street opioids: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

2025· other· en· W7084108409 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFungal Plant Pathogen Control
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlHealth Sciences NorthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydromorphoneMethadoneBuprenorphineOpioidOxymorphoneMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPlaceboSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To synthesize and determine the relative effectiveness of diverse opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medications, including injectables, for opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CRD42018109469) and previously published systematic reviews of head-to-head trials of OAT medications. The primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcomes included days of opioid use, days of cocaine use, and proportion of participants involved in criminalized activities. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly compare treatments at varying lengths of follow-up (3 to 12 months). Sensitivity analyses examined influence of follow-up duration and other trial factors. Results Twenty-four RCTs were included. Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone and injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone had similar retention compared to one another (OR: 1.05; 95%CrI: 0.27, 4.10). Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone had similar or statistically favourable retention versus low, medium, and high doses of conventional OATs: buprenorphine (OR: 13.55; 95%CrI: 4.51, 42.52; OR: 5.07; 95%CrI: 2.03, 12.47; OR: 2.21; 95%CrI: 0.18, 21.54) and methadone (OR: 5.88; 95%CrI: 2.34, 16.33; OR: 3.66; 95%CrI: 1.57, 8.82; OR: 3.67; 95%CrI: 1.83, 8.35). Similarly, injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone also showed favourable or similar retention relative to conventional OATs. Limiting analyses to trials that included only OAT-experienced patients, that offered no extra participation incentive, and/or with 6 months (± 0.5) of follow-up generally did not change the direction of the findings. Injectable hydromorphone plus oral methadone was also statistically favoured in terms of reduced days of opioid use relative to methadone, but mean differences in days of cocaine use were similar. Diacetylmorphine plus oral methadone was associated with a smaller proportion of participation in criminalized activities relative to methadone alone. Conclusion Both diacetylmorphine and injectable hydromorphone supplemented with methadone showed favourable retention compared to methadone and buprenorphine, depending on the strength of the OAT being co-prescribed or being compared to. These results provide further support for alternatives to conventional OATs such as diacetylmorphine or injectable hydromorphone for treatment retention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.208 · 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