Cited by 33Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Efficacy of indirect dopamine agonists for psychostimulant dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pérez-Mañá, Clara, Castells, Xavier, Vidal, Xavier, Casas, Miguel, Capellà, Dolors·2011·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

Abstract

Psychostimulant dependence is characterized by dopamine deficit, which could be reversed with indirect dopamine agonists (IDAs). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IDAs in psychostimulant-dependent individuals were conducted. The study outcomes were psychostimulant abstinence, assessed by means of urinalysis, and retention in treatment. Risk of bias was determined using a Cochrane Collaboration instrument. Twenty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, involving 2,467 participants. Compared with placebo, IDAs increased psychostimulant abstinence (standardized mean difference = 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.35; p = .005) but did not increase retention in treatment. Efficacy was larger in comorbid heroin-dependent individuals and was positively related with treatment length. No study was considered fully free of bias. IDAs appear to be efficacious for reducing psychostimulant use but did not improve retention. Efforts should be undertaken to reduce the risk of bias of clinical trials with psychostimulant-dependent individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.08.012

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Non-selective dopamine agonists have at best limited efficacy for cocaine addiction.

    “While non-selective dopamine agonists have, at best, limited efficacy for cocaine addiction (Amato et al., 2011; Perez-Mana et al., 2011), a recent study showed that levodopa/carbidopa was most effective when combined with a behavioral treatment that uses positive reinforcement to shift behavior (Schmitz et al., 2008)”

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 110 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pérez-Mañá, C., Castells, X., Vidal, X., Casas, M., & Capellà, D.
Affiliations
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
109-122
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015083139
Cited by
33
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Plan Nacional sobre Drogas
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 › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
stimulant use disorder, cocaine dependence, abstinence, treatment retention, treatment duration, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Animals, Dopamine, Humans, Time Factors, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Dopamine Agonists, Amphetamine-Related Disorders, Cocaine-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