Cited by 263Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Neuropsychological consequences of chronic opioid use: a quantitative review and meta-analysis.

Baldacchino, A., Balfour, D.J.K., Passetti, F., Humphris, G., Matthews, K.·2012·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Introduction It is widely assumed within the accumulated literature that neuropsychological function is commonly impaired as a consequence of chronic opioid use. Method Quantitative and systematic review of the literature on the neuropsychology of chronic opioid use using the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results This meta-analysis suggests that chronic opioid exposure is associated with deficits across a range of different neuropsychological domains. However, the only domains where meta-analysis suggests robust impairment were those of verbal working memory, cognitive impulsivity (risk taking) and cognitive flexibility (verbal fluency). The magnitude of effect across these cognitive domains was medium according to Cohen's benchmark criteria. Discussion This analysis highlighted methodological problems present in the literature used and the value of utilising meta-analytic techniques to help further elucidate the neuropsychological consequences of chronic opioid use from 'core' addiction phenotypes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.06.006

Cites

92 of 92 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldacchino, A., Balfour, D. J. K., Passetti, F., Humphris, G., & Matthews, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
Corresponding author
Baldacchino, A.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
36
Issue
9
Pages
2056-2068
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080803007
Cited by
263
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
Funders
NHS Fife Research and Development Department
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
chronic opioid use, opioid use disorder, neuropsychological deficits, cognitive impairment, verbal working memory, impulsivity, risk-taking, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Memory, Opioid-Related Disorders, Risk-Taking

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