Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double‐blind trial with 405 opioid‐dependent patients

Mattick, Richard P., Ali, Robert, White, Jason M., O'Brien, Susannah, Wolk, Seija, Danz, Cath·2003·Addiction

Abstract

Aims To assess the efficacy of buprenorphine compared with methadone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence in a large sample using a flexible dosing regime and the marketed buprenorphine tablet. Design Patients were randomized to receive buprenorphine or methadone over a 13‐week treatment period in a double‐blind, double‐dummy trial. Setting Three methadone clinics in Australia. Participants Four hundred and five opioid‐dependent patients seeking treatment. Intervention Patients received buprenorphine or methadone as indicated clinically using a flexible dosage regime. During weeks 1–6, patients were dosed daily. From weeks 7–13, buprenorphine patients received double their week 6 dose on alternate days. Measurements Retention in treatment, and illicit opioid use as determined by urinalysis. Self‐reported drug use, psychological functioning, HIV‐risk behaviour, general health and subjective ratings were secondary outcomes. Findings Intention‐to‐treat analyses revealed no significant difference in completion rates at 13 weeks. Methadone was superior to buprenorphine in time to termination over the 13‐week period (Wald χ 2 = 4.371, df = 1, P = 0.037), but not separately for the single‐day or alternate‐day dosing phases. There were no significant between‐group differences in morphine‐positive urines, or in self‐reported heroin or other illicit drug use. The majority (85%) of the buprenorphine patients transferred to alternate‐day dosing were maintained in alternate‐day dosing. Conclusions Buprenorphine did not differ from methadone in its ability to suppress heroin use, but retained approximately 10% fewer patients. This poorer retention was due possibly to too‐slow induction onto buprenorphine. For the majority of patients, buprenorphine can be administered on alternate days.

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 · 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00335.x

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J. M., O'Brien, S., Wolk, S., & Danz, C.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03-25
Volume
98
Issue
4
Pages
441-452
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2112174894
Cited by
285
References
30
FWCI
20.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double‐blind trial with 405 opioid‐dependent patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00335.x
The paper
Mattick, R. P., Ali, R., White, J. M., O'Brien, S., Wolk, S., & Danz, C. (2003). Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance therapy: a randomized double‐blind trial with 405 opioid‐dependent patients. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00335.x

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.