The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To evaluate an experimental heroin maintenance programme. Design: Randomised trial. Setting: Outpatient clinic in Geneva, Switzerland. Subjects: Heroin addicts recruited from the community who were socially marginalised and in poor health and had failed in at least two previous drug treatments. Intervention: Patients in the experimental programme (n=27) received intravenous heroin and other health and psychosocial services. Control patients (n=24) received any other conventional drug treatment (usually methadone maintenance). Main outcome measures: Self reported drug use, health status (SF-36), and social functioning. Results: 25 experimental patients completed 6 months in the programme, receiving a median of 480 mg of heroin daily. One experimental subject and 10 control subjects still used street heroin daily at follow up (difference 44%; 95% confidence interval 16% to 71%). Health status scores that improved significantly more in experimental subjects were mental health (0.58 SD; 0.07 to 1.10), role limitations due to emotional problems (0.95 SD; 0.11 to 1.79), and social functioning (0.65 SD; 0.03 to 1.26). Experimental subjects also significantly reduced their illegal income and drug expenses and committed fewer drug and property related offences. There were no benefits in terms of work, housing situation, somatic health status, and use of other drugs. Unexpectedly, only nine (38%) control subjects entered the heroin maintenance programme at follow up. Conclusions: A heroin maintenance programme is a feasible and clinically effective treatment for heroin users who fail in conventional drug treatment programmes. Even in this population, however, another attempt at methadone maintenance may be successful and help the patient to stop using injectable opioids.
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
Cites
Dole, V. P. (1965) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1965.03090080008002 · Cited by 1,240
Cited by
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
Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W., Spittal, P. M., Li, K., Hogg, R. S., Montaner, J. S. G., O'Shaughnessy, M. V., & Schechter, M. T. (2002) · AIDS · doi:10.1097/00002030-200204120-00021 · Cited by 146
Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Injection Drug Users: Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies
Bassetti, S., & Battegay, M. (2004) · Infection · doi:10.1007/s15010-004-3106-0 · Cited by 118
Bassetti, S., Hoffmann, M., Bucher, H. C., Fluckiger, U., & Battegay, M. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/338876 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Perneger, T. V., Giner, F., del Rio, M., & Mino, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-07-04
- Volume
- 317
- Issue
- 7150
- Pages
- 13-18
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2020454958
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.04
- 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: Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.317.7150.13
- The paper
- Perneger, T. V., Giner, F., del Rio, M., & Mino, A. (1998). Randomised trial of heroin maintenance programme for addicts who fail in conventional drug treatments. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7150.13
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.