CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 201Alcoholism and Thiamine DeficiencySubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

A double-blind trial of gabapentin versus lorazepam in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal

Open access
Myrick, Hugh, Malcolm, Robert, Randall, Patrick K., Boyle, Elizabeth, Anton, Raymond F., Becker, Howard C., Randall, Carrie L.·2009·Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research
DOI 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00986.xPMC PMC2769515
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Some anticonvulsants ameliorate signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, but have an unacceptable side effect burden. Among the advantages of using anticonvulsant agents in this capacity is their purported lack of interaction with alcohol that could increase psychomotor deficits, increase cognitive impairment, or increase intoxication. The aim of this study was to evaluate alcohol use and symptom reduction of gabapentin when compared with lorazepam in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred individuals seeking outpatient treatment of alcohol withdrawal with Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) ratings > or =10 were randomized to double-blind treatment with 2 doses of gabapentin (900 mg tapering to 600 mg or 1200 tapering to 800 mg) or lorazepam (6 mg tapering to 4 mg) for 4 days. Severity of alcohol withdrawal was measured by the CIWA-Ar on days 1 to 4 of treatment and on days 5, 7, and 12 post-treatment and alcohol use monitored by verbal report and breath alcohol levels. RESULTS: CIWA-Ar scores decreased over time in all groups; high-dose gabapentin was statistically superior but clinically similar to lorazepam (p = 0.009). During treatment, lorazepam-treated participants had higher probabilities of drinking on the first day of dose decrease (day 2) and the second day off medication (day 6) compared to gabapentin-treated participants (p = 0.0002). Post-treatment, gabapentin-treated participants had less probability of drinking during the follow-up post-treatment period (p = 0.2 for 900 mg and p = 0.3 for 1200 mg) compared to the lorazepam-treated participants (p = 0.55). The gabapentin groups also had less craving, anxiety, and sedation compared to lorazepam. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin was well tolerated and effectively diminished the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal in our population especially at the higher target dose (1200 mg) used in this study. Gabapentin reduced the probability of drinking during alcohol withdrawal and in the immediate postwithdrawal week compared to lorazepam.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00986.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 24 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The pattern of drinking across days differed significantly between lorazepam and gabapentin groups (Group by Day interaction, f(1,734)=3.24, p=.0002).

    “A distinctly different pattern across days was observed in the lorazepam vs. gabapentin treated individuals (Group by Day interaction, f(1,734)=3.24, p=.0002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    High-dose gabapentin differed significantly from lorazepam in CIWA-Ar scores during both treatment (p=.03) and follow-up (p=.006) phases.

    “Follow-up analysis using the nested model contrasts revealed a significant difference between the high dose gabapentin group and the lorazepam group during both the treatment and follow-up phases of the experiment (p=.03 and p=.006, respectively; see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    On the initial medication day, gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to drink than lorazepam-treated participants.

    “On the initial day of medication, gabapentin participants were more likely to drink than lorazepam subjects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a tendency for lorazepam participants to report more sedation (p=.12).

    “There was a tendency for lorazepam participants to report more sedation (p=.12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Gabapentin participants at both doses scored significantly lower on the Zung Anxiety scale than lorazepam participants during the medication period.

    “Gabapentin participants, at both doses, scored significantly lower on the Zung Anxiety scale than did lorazepam participants during the medication period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 26
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Epworth Sleepiness scale scores were significantly lower in the high-dose gabapentin group than in the lorazepam group during medication, but not during follow-up.

    “The Epworth Sleepiness scale was significantly lower in the high dose gabapentin vs lorazepam group during the medication, but not during follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During follow-up, high-dose gabapentin participants scored lower on the Zung Anxiety scale than lorazepam participants, but low-dose gabapentin participants did not.

    “This was the case also during the follow-up period for the high dose, but not the low dose, of gabapentin.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    High-dose gabapentin (1200 mg) was statistically superior to lorazepam in reducing overall CIWA-Ar scores (p=0.009), but the clinical difference was small.

    “high-dose gabapentin was statistically superior but clinically similar to lorazepam (p=0.009)”
    • Also stated in: § Alcohol Withdrawal Symptoms · plain
      “Simple contrasts revealed that the high dose gabapentin group (p=.009), but not the low dose gabapentin group (p=.62), had significantly lower CIWA-Ar scores than the lorazepam group, overall.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant group by day interaction for CIWA-Ar scores (p=.013), mainly due to divergence after medication discontinuation.

    “A group by day interaction (p=.013) was found and was primarily the result of the divergence in CIWA-Ar scores between groups immediately after the drug was discontinued.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With time as a continuous variable, there was a significant effect of drug on the decline in CIWA-Ar ratings over time, with no difference in intercept.

    “A similar analysis with time as a continuous variable revealed a significant effect of drug (high dose gabapentin reducing CIWA-Ar scores more than lorazepam) on the decline in ratings over time with no difference in intercept.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    An ordinal mixed model showed a significant drug by day interaction (X2(7)=19.6, p=.007) with high-dose gabapentin reducing CIWA-Ar scores more than lorazepam, mainly at the last two post-treatment observations.

    “An ordinal mixed model (HLM 6.0) showed a significant drug by day interaction (X2 (7) = 19.6, p=007) (high dose gabapentin reducing CIWA-Ar scores more than lorazepam), due primarily to the last two, post-treatment follow-up observations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 600 mg/day gabapentin group was discontinued after two patients reported medically unwitnessed seizure-like episodes and one subject had a near-syncopal event; data from these participants were not included in the analysis.

    “The lowest dose (600 mg/day) gabapentin group (n=16) was discontinued after two patients reported medically unwitnessed seizure-like episodes and one subject had a near-syncopal event. The data from these participants were not included in the analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the same treatment phase, low-dose gabapentin participants had less craving and less anxiety, but also less depressive symptoms.

    “During the same treatment phase, participants treated with low dose gabapentin had less craving for alcohol and less anxiety, but also less depressive symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Group differences in drinking probability between gabapentin and lorazepam were marginally significant at day 1 (p=.07) and significant at days 2, 3, and 6 (p=.027, .019, and .0009, respectively).

    “Group differences between gabapentin-treated participants and lorazepam-treated participants were marginally significant at day 1 (t(734)=1.79, p=.07) and were significant at days 2, 3 and 6 (p=.027, .019 and .0009, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the current study, gabapentin reduced craving, anxiety/depressive symptoms and individuals complained of less subjective discomfort compared to lorazepam.

    “In the current study, gabapentin reduced craving, anxiety/depressive symptoms and individuals complained of less subjective discomfort as compared to the individuals treated with lorazepam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Craving was significantly reduced relative to lorazepam in both gabapentin dose groups during the medication period, with no differences among groups during follow-up.

    “Craving was significantly reduced relative to lorazepam in both gabapentin doses during the medication period, while there were no differences among the groups during the follow-up phase.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the medication treatment phase, high-dose gabapentin participants had less craving, less anxiety, and less daytime sedation compared to lorazepam participants.

    “During the medication treatment phase of the study, participants treated with high dose gabapentin had less craving for alcohol, less anxiety, and less daytime sedation as compared to participants treated with lorazepam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    High-dose gabapentin participants rated their ability to perform work better than lorazepam participants during follow-up; this was not true for low-dose gabapentin.

    “The only significant result among the four visual analog scales was that high dose gabapentin participants rated their ability to perform work better than lorazepam participants during follow-up. This was not true of the low dose gabapentin group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a tendency for gabapentin participants to report more intoxication (p=.17) and more pruritis (p=.17).

    “There was a tendency in the gabapentin participants to report more intoxication (p=.17) and more pruritis (p=.17).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study.

    “All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was registered on the NIH clinical trials database (clinicaltrials.gov).

    “This study was registered on the NIH clinical trials database (www.clinicaltrials.gov).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Gabapentin was well tolerated and effectively diminished symptoms of alcohol withdrawal in the study population, especially at the higher target dose (1200 mg).

    “Gabapentin was well tolerated and effectively diminished the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal in our population especially at the higher target dose (1200mg) used in this study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Participants were randomized using an URN randomization method balancing gender and detoxification history (0-1 vs >1 previous medicated detoxifications).

    “Participants were randomized to treatment groups (doses of gabapentin or lorazepam) using an URN randomization method balancing gender and detoxification history (0-1 vs >1 previous medicated detoxifications) (Stout, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stout, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sample size was relatively small and conclusions about side effects of uncommon frequency cannot be made.

    “Our sample size was relatively small and conclusions about side effects of uncommon frequency cannot be made.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The primary power analysis was based on a planned comparison of expected CIWA-Ar scores between medication groups at Day 7.

    “The primary power analysis was based on a planned comparison of expected CIWA-Ar scores between the medication groups assessed 3 days after the end of treatment (Day 7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Only the study statisticians and the data safety monitoring committee saw unblinded data, and none had contact with study participants.

    “Only the study statisticians and the data safety monitoring committee saw unblinded data, but none had any contact with study participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    High-dose gabapentin (1200 mg) was of marginal clinical but statistical superiority to both lorazepam and low-dose gabapentin (900 mg) in decreasing alcohol withdrawal symptoms.

    “The high dose gabapentin (1200 mg) was found to be of marginal clinical but of statistical superiority to both lorazepam and low dose gabapentin (900 mg) in decreasing alcohol withdrawal symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Pre-treatment drinks per day and ADS score were assessed as constant covariates; both explained significant variance, and drinks per day was employed in the final analysis because it remained significant when both were added.

    “Pre-treatment drinks per day and ADS score were assessed as constant covariates in the analysis. Both explained significant variance. Drinks per day was employed in the final analysis since it remained significant when both were added to the model, whereas ADS score did not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gabapentin potentiates CNS GABA in humans, inhibits glutamate synthesis, modulates calcium current, inhibits sodium channels, and reduces norepinephrine and dopamine release.

    “Gabapentin has been found to potentiate CNS GABA in humans (Petroff et al., 1996), inhibit glutamate synthesis, modulate calcium current, inhibit sodium channels, and reduce norepinephrine and dopamine release (Cho et al., 1998; Taylor, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Petroff et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cho et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Taylor, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants had extensive drinking histories but only mild to moderate withdrawal severity.

    “Participants that were selected had extensive drinking histories, but with only mild to moderate withdrawal severity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    30-50% of alcoholics relapse during the first three months after stopping drinking.

    “It is established that 30-50% of alcoholics relapse during the first three months after stopping drinking (Mann et al., 2004; Kyrstal et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mann et al., 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kyrstal et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Many participants were in better general health than patients in alcohol withdrawal presenting to emergency departments or hospitals.

    “Many of our participants were in better general health than patients in alcohol withdrawal presenting to emergency departments or hospitals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The CIWA-Ar is a validated 10-item scale used to monitor the clinical course of alcohol withdrawal symptoms.

    “Prior to medication treatment, participants were administered the CIWA-Ar, a validated 10-item scale used to monitor the clinical course of alcohol withdrawal symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sullivan et al., 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    CIWA-Ar scores were analyzed as a mixed model with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix, conditioned on baseline CIWA-Ar scores and pre-treatment drinks per day.

    “CIWA-Ar scores were analyzed as a mixed model (SAS Proc MIXED) with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix. Scores across the treatment and follow-up periods were conditioned on the baseline CIWA-Ar scores and drinks per day from the TLFB over the immediately preceding 14 days.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The mixed-model analysis is robust in the face of non-informative missing data.

    “This analysis is robust in the face of non-informative missing data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Benzodiazepines represent the standard of care for alcohol withdrawal and prevent withdrawal seizures and delirium tremens.

    “Benzodiazepines represent the standard of care for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal and have been shown to prevent alcohol withdrawal seizures and delirium tremens (Mayo-Smith, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mayo-Smith, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All medications and rescue packs were assessed at each visit for compliance.

    “All medications and rescue packs were assessed at each visit for compliance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were stratified into two groups based on number of prior medical detoxifications.

    “Participants were stratified into two groups based on the number of prior medical detoxifications and were randomized to four days of fixed-dose taper of gabapentin or lorazepam.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Gabapentin is free of side effects such as liver toxicity, thrombocytopenia, pancreatitis and bone marrow toxicity and may be safer than carbamazepine or valproic acid, but no comparison trials have been made.

    “Gabapentin is free of such side effects and may be safer than carbamazepine or valproic acid, but no comparison trials have been made.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Gabapentin was found superior to lorazepam in the treatment of outpatients in moderate alcohol withdrawal as measured by lower probability of drinking and by superior but clinically similar alcohol withdrawal symptom reduction.

    “Specifically, gabapentin was found to be superior to the benzodiazepine lorazepam in the treatment of outpatients in moderate alcohol withdrawal as measured by lower probability of drinking and by superior but clinically similar alcohol withdrawal symptom reduction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gabapentin is not metabolized in the liver, does not bind to plasma proteins or induce hepatic enzymes, has no bone marrow toxicity, is not a scheduled drug, and is eliminated by renal excretion as an unchanged drug.

    “It is not metabolized in the liver, does not bind to plasma proteins or induce hepatic enzymes, has no bone marrow toxicity, is not a scheduled drug, and is eliminated by renal excretion as an unchanged drug (McLean, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McLean, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Patients were administered the CIWA-Ar daily by a blinded Masters level research assistant.

    “Patients were administered the CIWA-Ar daily by a blinded Masters level research assistant for 4 days at approximately the same time each day during the treatment phase and on Days 5, 7 and 12 (1 day, 2 days and 7 days post-treatment).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Case reports of gabapentin abuse have occurred.

    “While not a scheduled drug, case reports of gabapentin abuse have occurred (Pittenger and Desan, 2007; Victorri-Vigneau et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pittenger and Desan, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Victorri-Vigneau et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The fact that all three adverse events occurred in the lowest gabapentin group suggests that the population under treatment was vulnerable to more severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms and that the medications used in the other groups likely inhibited the more severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms from being expressed.

    “Nevertheless, the fact that all three occurred in the lowest gabapentin group suggests that the population under treatment was indeed vulnerable to more severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms and that the medications used in the other groups likely inhibited the more severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms from being expressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
39 of 39

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Benzodiazepines impair cognition, which can interfere with early rehabilitation counseling.

    “Second, benzodiazepines do blunt cognition which might hamper early attempts at rehabilitation counseling.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Benzodiazepines interact significantly with alcohol and opioids.

    “Third, benzodiazepines have significant interactions with alcohol and opioids.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Carbamazepine and valproic acid reduce alcohol withdrawal symptoms but have significant side effects that raise safety concerns in patients with alcoholism.

    “Carbamazepine and valproic acid reduce alcohol withdrawal symptoms but have significant side effects that raise safety concerns in patients with alcoholism.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Gabapentin has a moderate side effect profile.

    “Gabapentin has a moderate side effect profile.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Gabapentin and many other anticonvulsants cannot be given parenterally and are unsuitable for vomiting or uncooperative delirious patients.

    “Gabapentin and many other anticonvulsants are not available for parenteral administration and are inappropriate in vomiting or uncooperative delirious patients.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The period of high relapse risk after stopping drinking is associated with impaired sleep, mood instability, and anxiety.

    “This vulnerable period to relapse is associated with impaired sleep, mood instability, and anxiety.”
6 of 6

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?

  • In an RCT of 100 individuals seeking outpatient treatment for AWS, high-dose gabapentin was statistically superior but clinically similar to lorazepam in reducing alcohol withdrawal severity.

    “The study found that high-dose gabapentin was statistically superior but clinically similar to lorazepam in reducing alcohol withdrawal severity.”

    From A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging Trends in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(734) = 1.79reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .074

    “t(734)=1.79, p = .07”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported p-value missing decimal point

    Major

    The text reports 'p=007', which is not a valid numeric p-value formatting and is inconsistent with the surrounding reporting style. The intended value appears to be 0.007, but as written the reported number is incorrect.

    Reported 7 · recomputed 0

  • Discussion claims comparison to placebo despite no placebo arm

    Minor

    One discussion paragraph says drinking was decreased as compared to placebo, but the methods explicitly state there was no placebo group. That is a direct contradiction within the paper.

  • An off-medication day is described as during treatment

    Minor

    The abstract places a Day 6 drinking comparison during treatment while identifying Day 6 as the second day off medication. The stated medication course lasted four days.

  • Discussion claims a placebo comparison that did not occur

    Minor

    The discussion describes reduced drinking compared with placebo, although the study explicitly states that it had no placebo group.

  • Follow-up intervals do not match the treatment schedule

    Minor

    With treatment ending on Day 4, Days 5, 7, and 12 are respectively 1, 3, and 8 days afterward-not 1, 2, and 7 days afterward.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Garofalo E, 1993, Experience with gabapentin overdose: five case studies, Epilepsia, 349, 157
  2. 10.1007/s11606-002-0038-1 · DOI
  3. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550020076042 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Myrick H, 2003, The use of anticonvulsants in the treatment of addictive disorders, Prim Psychiatry, 10, 59
  5. Myrick H, 2002, Three doses of gabapentin versus lorazepam in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal, Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 26, 129A

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Myrick, H., Malcolm, R., Randall, P. K., Boyle, E., Anton, R. F., Becker, H. C., & Randall, C. L.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Myrick, Hugh
ORCID
Venue
Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08-20
Volume
33
Issue
9
Pages
1582-1588
ISSN
  • 0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0277
DOI
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00986.x
PMC
PMC2769515
OpenAlex
W2069850786
Semantic Scholar
f2bea7c84eafe3cfdca1948edaf9199a5b32e65f
Cited by
201
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA00314, AA 10761, K23AA000314, P50AA010761)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Alcoholism and Thiamine Deficiency
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
gabapentin, lorazepam, alcohol withdrawal, antiepileptic drugs, alcohol craving, alcohol consumption, CIWA-Ar, withdrawal symptom severity, sedation, anxiety, drug tolerance, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Gabapentin, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Amines, Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, gamma-Aminobutyric Acid, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Lorazepam, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Recurrence, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Treatment Outcome, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists

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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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