The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fortnightly Review: Methadone maintenance treatment in opiate dependence: a review
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the changes and advances in research and clinical practice and examines the role of treatment structure and programme characteristics in the delivery of methadone maintenance. Methadone prescribing has become much more available over the past decade, both in countries with a history of its use, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, and in countries around the world which previously had not endorsed substitute prescribing.1 There is a need to examine closely the framework in which this treatment is delivered to ensure that the modes of delivery most effective from both cost and benefit perspectives are utilised. This review focuses entirely on methadone maintenance because this is the most extensively evaluated and most used treatment, with about a quarter of a million drug misusers receiving methadone treatment globally. A small number of experimental diamorphine and buprenorphine substitute programmes are being evaluated in several countries. Most studies have come from the United States and focus on the long term use of methadone in a specific setting; in contrast, methadone treatment in the United Kingdom has received virtually no formal evaluation to date bar one study.2 There is concern that a considerable amount of the methadone prescribing could be having little impact on illicit drug use or risk taking behaviour,3 a recent study of drug users in police custody echoes this.4 The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended a shift to a more structured approach for delivery of oral methadone maintenance. The organisation and regulation of methadone maintenance treatment varies widely, with explicit guidelines for programme operation in the United States and Australia and a virtual absence of structure and regulation in Britain. It is likely that policy analysts and treatment providers in countries with high levels of regulation and structured programmes …
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
The ‘risk environment’: A framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm
Rhodes, T. (2002) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/s0955-3959(02)00007-5 · Cited by 1,241
Eap, C. B., Buclin, T., & Baumann, P. (2002) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/00003088-200241140-00003 · Cited by 599
Amato, L., Davoli, M., A.Perucci, C., Ferri, M., Faggiano, F., & P. Mattick, R. (2005) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2005.02.007 · Cited by 567
Diacetylmorphine versus Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Addiction
Oviedo-Joekes, E., Brissette, S., Marsh, D. C., Lauzon, P., Guh, D., Anis, A., & Schechter, M. T. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810635 · Cited by 375
Veilleux, J. C., Colvin, P. J., Anderson, J., York, C., & Heinz, A. J. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.006 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrell, M., Ward, J., Mattick, R., Hall, W., Stimson, G. V., des Jarlais, D., Gossop, M., & Strang, J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1994-10-15
- Volume
- 309
- Issue
- 6960
- Pages
- 997-1001
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1841881976
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Fortnightly Review: Methadone maintenance treatment in opiate dependence: a review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.309.6960.997
- The paper
- Farrell, M., Ward, J., Mattick, R., Hall, W., Stimson, G. V., des Jarlais, D., Gossop, M., & Strang, J. (1994). Fortnightly Review: Methadone maintenance treatment in opiate dependence: a review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6960.997
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.