The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. METHOD: Participants (N = 164) were relatively treatment-naive, opioid-dependent applicants to a 26-week treatment program who were randomly assigned to either methadone or buprenorphine treatment. Dosing was double-blind and double-dummy. Patients were stabilized on a regimen of either methadone, 50 mg, or buprenorphine, 8 mg, with dose changes possible through week 16 of treatment. Urine samples were collected three times a week, and weekly counseling was provided. RESULTS: Buprenorphine (mean dose = 8.9 mg/day) and methadone (mean dose = 54 mg/day) were equally effective in sustaining retention in treatment, compliance with medication, and counseling regimens. In both groups, 56% of patients remained in treatment through the 16-week flexible dosing period. Overall opioid-positive urine sample rates were 55% and 47% for buprenorphine and methadone groups, respectively; cocaine-positive urine sample rates were 70% and 58%. Evidence was obtained for the effectiveness of dose increases in suppressing opioid, but not cocaine, use among those who received dose increases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide further support for the utility of buprenorphine as a new medication in the treatment of opioid dependence and demonstrate efficacy equivalent to that of methadone when used during a clinically guided flexible dosing procedure.
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
Jasinski, D. R. (1978) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770280111012 · Cited by 782
Cited by
Connock, M., Juarez-Garcia, A., Jowett, S., Frew, E., Liu, Z., Taylor, R., Fry-Smith, A., Day, E., Lintzeris, N., Roberts, T., et al. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11090 · Cited by 585
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
Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence
Mattick, R. P., Kimber, J., Breen, C., & Davoli, M. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002207.pub3 · Cited by 501
Guidelines for the psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence
Uchtenhagen, A. (2009) · Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) · doi:10.5167/uzh-17408 · Cited by 490
Kakko, J., Svanborg, K. D., Kreek, M. J., & Heilig, M. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12600-1 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 1994-07-01
- Volume
- 151
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1025-1030
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W125827253
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.88
- 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: Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.151.7.1025
- The paper
- Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. (1994). American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.7.1025
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.