Cited by 76Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS)-use disorders

Open access
Harada, Takayuki, Tsutomi, Hiroshi, Mori, Rintaro, Wilson, David B·2018·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Only two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.59, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd011315.pub2

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence-based strategies including contingency management, cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, motivational interviewing, acceptance and commitment therapy, and family-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing substance use and enhancing treatment outcomes.

    “Evidence-based strategies, including contingency management (CM), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), motivational interviewing (MI), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and family-based interventions, have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing substance use and enhancing treatment outcomes”

    From Navigating the Complex Intersection of Substance Use and Psychiatric Disorders: A Comprehensive Review (2024) · cites this paper as [47]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cochrane reviews have consistently highlighted the insufficiency of evidence to establish the effectiveness of certain psychotherapies for various SUDs, whether accompanied by comorbidity or not.

    “Cochrane reviews have consistently highlighted the insufficiency of evidence to establish the effectiveness of certain psychotherapies for various SUDs, whether accompanied by comorbidity or not.”

    From Navigating the Complex Intersection of Substance Use and Psychiatric Disorders: A Comprehensive Review (2024) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Authors’ Conclusions (page unavailable) state that evidence is insufficient to support CBT’s efficacy for amphetamine-type stimulant use disorders. The review does not establish the broader claim about various substance-use disorders, psychotherapies generally, or effectiveness with and without comorbidity; it describes studies of people with co-occurring disorders as excluded. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • High-quality research regarding the effectiveness of CBT in the treatment of stimulant use disorders is inadequate.

    “An example of this shortfall is the inadequacy of high-quality research regarding the effectiveness of CBT in the treatment of stimulant use disorders [47,48,58].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harada, T., Tsutomi, H., Mori, R., & Wilson, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Mejiro University (JP)
  • Shizuoka University (JP)
  • National Center For Child Health and Development (JP)
  • George Mason University (US)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-22
Volume
2018
Issue
12
Pages
CD011315-CD011315
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1816695864
Cited by
76
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
cognitive-behavioral intervention, amphetamine-type stimulants, stimulant use disorder, methamphetamine, MDMA, abstinence, treatment efficacy, psychotherapy comparison, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, substance use disorders, attrition bias, dropout, medication adherence, relapse, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Amphetamines, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Dropouts, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size, Amphetamine-Related Disorders

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