The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is a long term opioid replacement therapy, recognised as effective in the management of opioid dependence. Even if MMT at high dosage is recommended as therapy for reducing illicit opioid use and promoting longer retention in treatment, at present day "the organisation and regulation of the methadone maintenance treatment varies widely". OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of different dosages of MMT for opioid dependence in modifying health and social outcomes and in promoting patients' familial, occupational and relational functioning. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following sources were scanned: - MEDLINE (OVID 1966-2001)- EMBASE (1988-2001)- ERIC (1988-2001)- Psychinfo (1947-2001)- Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) (1947-2001)- Register of the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group (CDAG) (1947-2001)The CDAG search strategy was applied together with a specific MESH strategy. Further studies were searched through: letters to the authors of selected trials or to experts in order to obtain unpublished data. check of references of relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) and Controlled Prospective Studies (CPS) evaluating methadone maintenance at different dosages in the management of opioid dependence were included in the review. Non-randomised trials were included when proper adjustment for confounding factors was performed at the analysis stage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Extraction of data was performed separately by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. RevMan software was used for analysis. Quality assessments of the methodology of studies were carried out using CDAG checklist. MAIN RESULTS: 22 studies were excluded from the review. 21 studies were included; of them, 11 were RCTs with 2279 people randomised and 10 were CPSs with 3715 people followed-up. OUTCOMES: Retention rate - RCTs: High vs low doses at shorter follow-ups: RR=1.36 [1.13,1.63], and at longer ones: RR=1.62 [0.95,2.77]. Opioid use (self reported), times/w - RCTs: high vs low doses WMD= -2.00 [-4.77,0.77] high vs middle doses WMD= -1.89[-3.43, -0.35] Opioid abstinence, (urine based) at >3-4 w - RCTs: high vs low ones: RR=1.59 [1.16,2.18] high vs middle doses RR=1.51[0.63,3.61] Cocaine abstinence (urine based) at >3-4 w - RCTs: high vs low doses RR=1.81 [1.15,2.85]Overdose mortality - CPSs: high dose vs low dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.29 [0.02-5.34] high dose vs middle dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.38 [0.02-9.34] middle dose vs low dose at 6 years follow up: RR=0.57 [0.06-5.06] REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Methadone dosages ranging from 60 to 100 mg/day are more effective than lower dosages in retaining patients and in reducing use of heroin and cocaine during treatment. To find the optimal dose is a clinical ability, but clinician must consider these conclusions in treatment strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Drug Dependence, a Chronic Medical Illness
McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O'Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.13.1689 · Cited by 2,622
Dole, V. P. (1965) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1965.03090080008002 · Cited by 1,240
DOLE, V. P. (1966) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1966.00290160004002 · Cited by 290
Gossop, M., Marsden, J., Stewart, D., & Treacy, S. (2001) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(00)00211-8 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Amato, L., Davoli, M., A.Perucci, C., Ferri, M., Faggiano, F., & P. Mattick, R. (2005) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2005.02.007 · Cited by 567
Self-citationTreatment of opioid-use disorders
Schuckit, M. A. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1604339 · Cited by 540
Management of opioid use disorder in the USA: present status and future directions
Blanco, C., & Volkow, N. D. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)33078-2 · Cited by 407
Veilleux, J. C., Colvin, P. J., Anderson, J., York, C., & Heinz, A. J. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.006 · Cited by 336
Lingford-Hughes, A., Welch, S., Peters, L., Nutt, D., & With expert reviewers (in alphabetical order): Ball D, B. N. (2012) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881112444324 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Versino, E., & Lemma, P.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-07-21
- Volume
- 2010
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- CD002208-CD002208
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1935962209
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 11.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002208
- The paper
- Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Versino, E., & Lemma, P. (2003). Methadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002208
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.