Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Retention rate and substance use in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy and predictors of outcome: results from a randomized study

Open access
Soyka, Michael, Zingg, Christina, Koller, Gabriele, Kuefner, Heinrich·2008·The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

This was a 6-month, randomized, flexible-dose study comparing the effects of methadone (Meth) and buprenorphine (Bup) on retention rate and substance use in a sample of 140 opioid-dependent, primarily heroin-addicted, patients who had been without opioid substitution therapy in the 4 weeks prior to the study. The major aims were to compare the efficacy of Bup and Meth in a flexible dosing regimen and to identify possible predictors of outcome. There were no major inhomogeneities between treatment groups. All patients also received standardized psychosocial interventions. Mean daily dosages after the induction phase were 44-50 mg for Meth and 9-12 mg for Bup. Results from this study indicate a favourable outcome, with an overall retention rate of 52.1% and no significant differences between treatment groups (55.3% vs. 48.4%). Substance use decreased significantly over time in both groups and was non-significantly lower in the Bup group. Predictors of outcome were length of continuous opioid use and age at onset of opioid use, although these were only significant in the Bup group. Mean dosage and other parameters were not significant predictors of outcome. Overall, the results of this study give further evidence that substitution treatment is a safe and effective treatment for drug dependence. Meth and Bup are equally effective. Duration of continuous opioid use and age at onset were found to have predictive value for negative outcome. The intensity of withdrawal symptoms showed the strongest correlation with drop-out. Future studies are warranted to further address patient profiles and outcome under different substitution regimens.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s146114570700836x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 184

Metadata

Authors
Soyka, M., Zingg, C., Koller, G., & Kuefner, H.
Venue
The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2008-01-21
Volume
11
Issue
05
Pages
641-53
ISSN
  • 1461-1457 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5111
OpenAlex
W2126701437
Cited by
184
References
3
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Retention rate and substance use in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy and predictors of outcome: results from a randomized study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s146114570700836x
The paper
Soyka, M., Zingg, C., Koller, G., & Kuefner, H. (2008). Retention rate and substance use in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy and predictors of outcome: results from a randomized study. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s146114570700836x

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.