The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
Narrative reviews conclude that behavioral therapies (BTs) produce better outcomes than control conditions for cannabis use disorders (CUDs). However, the strength and consistency of this effect has not been directly empirically examined. The present meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of behavioral interventions in the treatment of CUDs. A comprehensive literature search produced 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 2,027) that were included in the final analyses. Analyses indicated an effect of BTs (including contingency management, relapse prevention, and motivational interviewing, and combinations of these strategies with cognitive behavioral therapy) over control conditions (including waitlist [WL], psychological placebo, and treatment as usual) across pooled outcomes and time points (Hedges’ g = 0.44). These results suggest that the average patient receiving a behavioral intervention fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions. BT also outperformed control conditions when examining primary outcomes alone (frequency and severity of use) and secondary outcomes alone (psychosocial functioning). Effect sizes were not moderated by inclusion of a diagnosis (RCTs including treatment-seeking cannabis users who were not assessed for abuse or dependence vs. RCTs including individuals diagnosed as dependent), dose (number of treatment sessions), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in-person vs. non-in-person treatment), sample size, or publication year. Effect sizes were significantly larger for studies that included a WL control comparison versus those including active control comparisons, such that BT significantly outperformed WL controls but not active control comparisons.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (n = 2,027) found that behavioral therapies for treatment-seeking cannabis users outperformed control conditions across pooled outcomes and time points. Effects were medium overall, but behavioral therapies significantly outperformed waitlist controls and not active controls.
Key findings
- Across all outcomes and time points, behavioral therapies outperformed controls with Hedges’ g = 0.44 (SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.26, 0.62], p < .001); the average patient receiving behavioral therapy fared better than 66% of controls.
- Behavioral therapies also outperformed controls on primary outcomes (frequency and severity of use; g = 0.49, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.26, 0.71], p < .001; better than approximately 69% of controls) and secondary outcomes (psychosocial functioning; g = 0.42, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.19, 0.65], p < .001; better than 66% of controls).
- Effect sizes were not significantly moderated by dose (β = .02, p = .43), publication year (β = .01, p = .73), sample size (β = .00, p = .70), diagnosis inclusion (p = .29), in-person versus non-in-person treatment (p = .80), or group versus individual in-person treatment (p = .78).
- Behavioral therapies significantly outperformed waitlist controls (g = 0.56, SE = 0.09, p < .001) but not active controls (g = 0.14, SE = 0.12, p = .25). Publication-bias analysis indicated more than 101 unpublished null studies would be needed to reduce the overall effect to nonsignificance, exceeding the suggested threshold of 60.
Methods
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified through Scopus, Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Dissertation Abstracts International, searched from first available date until March 15, 2013, using terms random* and cannabis or marijuana; 763 potential articles were identified and 10 RCTs (n = 2,027) were included.
- Inclusion criteria required at least one behavioral component (e.g., contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, or combinations with cognitive behavioral therapy), random assignment, an active or inactive control group (waitlist, psychological placebo, or treatment as usual), and a treatment-seeking sample.
- Between-group effect sizes were computed with Hedges’ g using random-effects analyses; heterogeneity was assessed with Q and I², moderators were examined with unrestricted maximum likelihood meta-regressions, and publication bias was assessed with fail-safe N.
Limitations
- The paper states that most RCTs compared two behavioral therapies without a control group and were excluded; only 10 trials with controls were available, which may have limited power to detect moderators.
- The paper states it did not compare different forms of behavioral treatment because versions were not uniform across studies; two included studies used web-based or telephone-based rather than in-person treatment.
- The paper states that some RCTs did not assess abuse/dependence and included cannabis “users,” while others included only dependent participants; it also notes that active-control comparisons were limited to three studies and should be interpreted cautiously.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 18 Own interpretation · 17 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, there was not a significant difference in effect sizes between studies that did not assess for abuse or dependence as an inclusion criteria versus studies that only enrolled participants diagnosed as dependent (p = .29) or studies using in-person versus non-in-person treatments (p = .80).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to prediction, a meta-regression analysis showed there was not a significant relationship between dose (number of treatment sessions) and effect sizes (β = .02, p = .43).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also not a significant relationship between publication year and effect size (β = .01, p = .73) or between sample size and effect size (β = .00, p = .70).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with our prediction, BT also significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (measures of psychosocial functioning). Using a Hedges’ g random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.42 (SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.65], p < .001).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also not a significant relationship between publication year and effect size (β = .01, p = .73) or between sample size and effect size (β = .00, p = .70).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, there was not a significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year, sample (users vs. dependent), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in person vs. Internet or telephone based), or sample size.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
plainn = 2,027- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, there was not a significant difference in effect sizes between studies that did not assess for abuse or dependence as an inclusion criteria versus studies that only enrolled participants diagnosed as dependent (p = .29) or studies using in-person versus non-in-person treatments (p = .80).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, consistent with prediction, BT outperformed control conditions on primary outcomes (Hedges’ g = .49)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
plaindirectn = 2,027- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with prediction, BT also outperformed control conditions across pooled primary measures (frequency and severity of use). Using a random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.49 (SE = 0.11, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.71]), indicating an effect for BT relative to control conditions (p < .001).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses indicated an effect of BTs (including contingency management, relapse prevention, and motivational interviewing, and combinations of these strategies with cognitive behavioral therapy) over control conditions (including waitlist [WL], psychological placebo, and treatment as usual) across pooled outcomes and time points (Hedges’ g = 0.44).”
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
“Using a random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.44 (standard error [SE] = 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.26, 0.62]), indicating a medium effect for BT relative to control conditions overall (p < .001).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
hedgeddirectn = 2,027 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across studies, the most common control condition was WL accounting for seven studies”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three studies included a condition with RP (Copeland et al., 2001; Stephens et al., 2000; Stephens et al., 1994) and two studies included conditions with CM (Carroll et al., 2006; Kadden et al., 2007).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, there was a significant difference between active control groups and WL control group, such that BTs evidenced larger effect sizes than active control groups when compared to WL control groups”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: [0.73, 6.48], p < .001)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The primary overall heterogeneity analysis (I2) suggested that 46% of the variance in effect sizes was due to true between-study differences (Q(9) = 16.44, p = .06), though this effect was not significant.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, there are now 10 RCTs available compared to only 5 in the previous analysis.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, one recent meta-analysis examining interventions for adolescent cannabis use found psychosocial substance use interventions to effectively reduce cannabis use frequency (Bender, Tripodi, Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2011).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bender, Tripodi, Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, improving treatment effectiveness for CUDs may require developing augmentative treatments directly targeting the biobehavioral mechanisms underlying cannabis use maintenance and relapse.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The vast majority of persons with any substance use disorder do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.
In the paper
“Indeed, cannabis use among adolescence is particularly problematic, given research indicating potential links between cannabis use in adolescence and increased risk for mental health problems later in life (Large, Sharma, Compton, Slade, & Nielssen, 2011).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Large, Sharma, Compton, Slade, & Nielssen, 2011
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding is unsurprising, as studies utilizing some form of treatment are likely to be more effective than WL due to treatment expectancies and therapist contact.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“over and above these results suggesting that CUDs respond to the same types of behavioral interventions as other SUDs (Dutra et al., 2008; McRae et al., 2003)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites McRae et al., 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Rosenthal (1991) suggested that findings may be considered robust if the required number of studies (X) to reduce the overall effect size to a nonsignificant level exceeded 5K + 10 which in this study would be 60.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosenthal, 1991
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“studies suggest that many patients do not show a positive treatment response, indicating that cannabis dependence is not easily treated”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McRae, Budney, and Brady, 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, the overall average pre- to posttreatment effect size calculation for the five CUD randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded a Cohen’s d of 0.81 (Dutra et al., 2008).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, any meta-analysis of published studies may be missing nonsignificant studies and therefore overestimate the overall effect size.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bakan, 1967
- Not checked yetcites McNemar, 1960
- Not checked yetcites Smart, 1964
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, some of the RCTs included in the analysis did not assess for substance abuse/dependence and included cannabis “Users,” while others included only those participants diagnosed as dependent.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the current study did not compare different forms of behavioral treatments (e.g., relapse prevention, motivational enhancement, contingency management, and combinations of these treatments with CBT), as across studies, each version of behavioral treatment is not uniform.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, most RCTs in our review of the literature compared two BTs without including a control group (WL, PsychPL, or TAU); these studies were not included due to our interest in isolating the effects of BTs by comparing to control groups without BT components.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Accordingly, increasing endocannabinoid levels during cannabis cessation attempts (i.e., during active BT) may improve outcomes by reducing withdrawal symptoms (Clapper et al., 2009).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clapper et al., 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which indicates a need for the development and evaluation of augmentative intervention strategies relevant to this population.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Summary and Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
“Effect sizes were calculated with random effects analyses, which estimate the overall effect size assuming the studies included are only a sample of the entire population of studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
“We chose to only include studies with a control condition (i.e., any conditions that did not appear to include the active components of BT) in order to compare controlled effect sizes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
“A conservative method of addressing this problem is to assume that the effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0”
The paper relies on this without support.
The vast majority of persons with any substance use disorder do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.
“Indeed, the vast majority of persons with any SUD do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.”
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.
- ConsistentQ(9) = 16.44reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .058
“Q(9) = 16.44, p = .06”
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“95% CI: [0.73, 6.48]”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763 · cited 1×
“…the variability or proportion of variance accounted for by true differences between studies was then estimated with the I2 index and interpreted with the conventions of small (25%), medium (50%), and large (75%; Higgins & Thompson, 2002; Huedo-Medina, Sanchez-Meca, Marin-Martinez, & Botella, 2006).”
MethodHierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods
Davidian, M. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s288 · Cited by 13,820
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index.
Mclellan, A., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I. E., Grissom, G. R., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s · Cited by 4,280 · cited 1×
“Psychosocial functioning was most frequently assessed using the Addiction Severity Index (McLellan et al., 1992).”
MethodAssessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Fildes, R. A. (1989) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(89)90106-4 · Cited by 3,956
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5931 · Cited by 2,561
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
(2010) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/(issn)1530-0277 · Cited by 1,830
Anthony, J. C., Warner, L. A., & Kessler, R. C. (1994) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/1064-1297.2.3.244 · Cited by 1,341
A Meta-Analytic Review of Psychosocial Interventions for Substance Use Disorders
Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S. L., Leyro, T. M., Powers, M. B., & Otto, M. W. (2008) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851 · Cited by 1,287 · cited 7×
“We previously examined the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in a meta-analysis for adult SUDs (Dutra et al., 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationResults From the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings
(2009) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e592592009-001 · Cited by 1,178
Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use
Hall, W., & Degenhardt, L. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61037-0 · Cited by 1,134 · cited 1×
“…are projected to become future daily users (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1995), which is problematic considering the numerous health and psychosocial consequences associated with frequent (e.g., daily or weekly) cannabis use (Degenhardt, Hall, & Lynskey, 2001a, 2001b; Hall & Degenhardt, 2009).”
BackgroundThe Handbook of Research Synthesis
Hanka, R. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6952.488a · Cited by 1,065
A meta-analytic review of prolonged exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder
Powers, M. B., Halpern, J. M., Ferenschak, M. P., Gillihan, S. J., & Foa, E. B. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.007 · Cited by 1,005
Self-citationEstimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985) · Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-057065-5.50010-5 · Cited by 983 · cited 2×
“Using weights, the adjusted Hedges’ g corrects for small sample sizes (Deeks, Altman, & Bradburn, 2001; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1994).”
MethodSterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964 · cited 1×
“Several authors suggest there may be a potential discrepancy between the number of published trials and the total number that are completed (Bakan, 1967; McNemar, 1960; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundComparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Curtin, L. (2000) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.5.898 · Cited by 711 · cited 4×
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGobbi, G., Bambico, F. R., Mangieri, R. A., Bortolato, M., Campolongo, P., Solinas, M., Cassano, T., Morgese, M. G., Debonnel, G., Duranti, A., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0509591102 · Cited by 692 · cited 1×
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundAcceptance and commitment therapy: A meta-analytic review
Powers, M. B., Zum Vörde Sive Vörding, M. B., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2009) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000190790 · Cited by 619
Self-citationCannabis Use and Earlier Onset of Psychosis
Large, M. M. B., Sharma, S. K., Compton, M. T., Slade, T. N., & Nielssen, O. B. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.5 · Cited by 563
Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002
Compton, W. M., Grant, B. F., Colliver, J. D., Glantz, M. D., & Stinson, F. S. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.17.2114 · Cited by 537
Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: A meta-analysis
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Horowitz, J. D., Powers, M. B., & Telch, M. J. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.007 · Cited by 530
Self-citationDietrich, A., & McDaniel, W. F. (2004) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.011718 · Cited by 410 · cited 1×
“Potentially effective strategies to accomplish this safely are currently being investigated, such as moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (Dietrich & McDaniel, 2004; Sparling, Giuffrida, Piomelli, Rosskopf, & Dietrich, 2003) and lowdose tetrahydrocannabinol (Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Moore, &…”
BackgroundBortolato, M., Mangieri, R. A., Fu, J., Kim, J. H., Arguello, O., Duranti, A., Tontini, A., Mor, M., Tarzia, G., & Piomelli, D. (2007) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.12.001 · Cited by 347 · cited 1×
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundDegenhardt, L. J., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. T. (2001) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961116037.x · Cited by 330
A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder
Copeland, J., Swift, W., Roffman, R., & Stephens, R. (2001) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9 · Cited by 322 · cited 3×
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodResultExercise activates the endocannabinoid system
Sparling, P. B., Giuffrida, A., Piomelli, D., Rosskopf, L., & Dietrich, A. (2003) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-200312020-00015 · Cited by 313
Brief treatments for cannabis dependence: Findings from a randomized multisite trial
Babor, T. F., & The Marijuana Treatment Project Research Group (2004) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.3.455 · Cited by 313
Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis
Powers, M. B., Vedel, E., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.002 · Cited by 300 · cited 1×
“This is consistent with methodology used in previous meta-analyses examining substance use (Dutra et al., 2008; Powers et al., 2008).”
ResultSelf-citationBudney, A. J., Moore, B. A., Rocha, H. L., & Higgins, S. T. (2006) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.4.2.307 · Cited by 290
Marijuana Dependence and Its Treatment
Budney, A. J., Roffman, R. A., Stephens, R., & Walker, D. D. (2007) · Addiction Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1151/ascp07414 · Cited by 278
Treating adult marijuana dependence: A test of the relapse prevention model.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Simpson, E. E. (1994) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.62.1.92 · Cited by 270 · cited 17×
“Hoch et al. (2012) randomized 122 adolescents and adults (aged 16–44) with cannabis dependence to (a) 10 sessions of CBT þME þ TAU or (b) WL control (Hoch et al., 2012).”
MethodResultInfluentialMarijuana Withdrawal in Humans: Effects of Oral THC or Divalproex
Haney, M., Hart, C. L., Vosburg, S. K., Nasser, J. A., Bennett, A., Zúbaran, C., & Foltin, R. W. (2003) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300310 · Cited by 264
DEVELOPING A PROTOTYPE FOR EVALUATING ALCOHOL TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
Sobell, M. B., COOPER, A. M., Maisto, S. A., Cooper, T., Sobell, L. C., & Sanders, B. (1980) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-022997-3.50013-2 · Cited by 244 · cited 1×
“RCTs utilized a variety of measures to assess for frequency and severity of use, including number of days used in the past 30 days or number of joints assessed by a Timeline Follow-Back measurement (Sobell et al., 1980).”
MethodAnxiolytic-Like Properties of the Anandamide Transport Inhibitor AM404
Bortolato, M., Campolongo, P., Mangieri, R. A., Scattoni, M. L., Frau, R., Trezza, V., Rana, G. L., Russo, R., Calignano, A., Gessa, G. L., et al. (2006) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301061 · Cited by 236
Treating adult marijuana dependence: A test of the relapse prevention model.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Simpson, E. E. (1994) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.62.1.92 · Cited by 223
Carroll, K. M., Easton, C. J., Nich, C., Hunkele, K. A., Neavins, T. M., Sinha, R., Ford, H. L., Vitolo, S. A., Doebrick, C. A., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.5.955 · Cited by 214 · cited 5×
“Additionally, the Carroll et al. (2006) study comparison group, though labeled as ‘‘individual drug counseling,’’ was described as ‘‘a standardized version of the counseling that is typically offered in community-based clinics.’’”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBonn‐Miller, M. O., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2006) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.03.018 · Cited by 208
Self-citationComparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse
Budney, A. J., Vandrey, R. G., Hughes, J. R., Thostenson, J. D., & Bursac, Z. (2008) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2008.01.002 · Cited by 195
A Meta–Analytic Review of Psychological Treatments for Social Anxiety Disorder
Powers, M. B., Sigmarsson, S. R., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2008) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1521/ijct.2008.1.2.94 · Cited by 191 · cited 1×
“This is consistent with methodology used in previous meta-analyses examining substance use (Dutra et al., 2008; Powers et al., 2008).”
ResultSelf-citationOral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms
Budney, A. J., Vandrey, R. G., Hughes, J. R., Moore, B. A., & Bahrenburg, B. (2007) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.04.014 · Cited by 180
Abstinence rates following behavioral treatments for marijuana dependence
Kadden, R. M., Litt, M. D., Kabela-Cormier, E., & Petry, N. M. (2007) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.08.009 · Cited by 173 · cited 5×
“Kadden, Litt, Kabela-Cormier, and Petry (2007) randomized 240 cannabis dependent adults to 9 weekly sessions of (a) CBT þ ME þ CM, (b) CBT þME, (c) CM, or (d) a supportive PsychPL condition (Kadden et al., 2007).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe importance of negative results in psychological research.
Smart, R. (1964) · The Canadian Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0083036 · Cited by 156
Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use
Johnson, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2003) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e400412005-001 · Cited by 147
Degenhardt, L. J., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. T. (2001) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s001270170052 · Cited by 143
Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial
Rooke, S., Copeland, J., Norberg, M., Hine, D., & McCambridge, J. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2256 · Cited by 141
The adolescent cannabis check-up: Randomized trial of a brief intervention for young cannabis users
Martin, G., & Copeland, J. (2007) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.07.004 · Cited by 132 · cited 3×
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
MethodAt random: Sense and nonsense.
McNemar, Q. (1960) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0049193 · Cited by 127 · cited 1×
“Several authors suggest there may be a potential discrepancy between the number of published trials and the total number that are completed (Bakan, 1967; McNemar, 1960; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundTreatment of Cannabis Use Disorders: A Review of the Literature
Nordstrom, B. R., & LEVIN, F. R. (2007) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1080/10550490701525665 · Cited by 125 · cited 2×
“For example, individuals attempting to quit cannabis experience marked difficulty in remaining abstinent whether they make a quit attempt on their own or seek professional treatment (Budney, Roffman, Stephens, & Walker, 2007; McRae, Budney, & Brady, 2003; Nordstrom & Levin, 2007).”
BackgroundTreatment of marijuana dependence: a review of the literature.
McRae, A. L., Budney, A. J., & Brady, K. T. (2003) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(03)00041-2 · Cited by 115 · cited 6×
“, cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]) produce better outcomes than control conditions (McRae et al., 2003; Nordstrom & Levin, 2007; Zimmermann Mühlig, Sonntag, Bühringer, & Wittchen, 2004).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialQuitting Among Non‐Treatment‐Seeking Marijuana Users: Reasons and Changes in Other Substance Use
Copersino, M. L., Boyd, S. J., Tashkin, D. P., Huestis, M. A., Heishman, S. J., Dermand, J. C., Simmons, M. S., & Gorelick, D. A. (2006) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1080/10550490600754341 · Cited by 108 · cited 1×
“Moreover, several studies document high failure rates among self-quitters, as indexed by numerous unsuccessful quit attempts (Copersino et al., 2006; Weiner, Sussman, McCuller, & Lichtman, 1999).”
BackgroundJohnson, K., Mullin, J. L., Marshall, E. C., Bonn‐Miller, M. O., & Zvolensky, M. (2010) · The American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2010.00041.x · Cited by 95
Self-citationRandomized controlled trial of a novel cannabis use intervention delivered by telephone
Gates, P., Norberg, M. M., Copeland, J., & Digiusto, E. (2012) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03953.x · Cited by 94 · cited 2×
“Further, two of the studies did not utilize in-person treatment conditions and instead used web-based (Rooke et al., 2013) or telephone-based interventions (Gates et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodThe endocannabinoid system as a target for the treatment of cannabis dependence
Clapper, J. R., Mangieri, R. A., & Piomelli, D. (2008) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.07.018 · Cited by 94 · cited 2×
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundComment: Assumptions and Procedures in the File Drawer Problem
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. (1988) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177013014 · Cited by 93 · cited 1×
“A conservative method of addressing this problem is to assume that the effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0 and compute the number of such studies it would require to reduce the overall effect size to a nonsignificant level (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1988).”
A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Adolescent Cannabis Use
Bender, K., Tripodi, S. J., Sarteschi, C., & Vaughn, M. G. (2010) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731510380226 · Cited by 66
Predictors of marijuana treatment outcomes: The role of self-efficacy
Stephens, R. S., Wertz, J. S., & Roffman, R. A. (1993) · Journal of Substance Abuse · doi:10.1016/0899-3289(93)90003-t · Cited by 63
Efficacy of a targeted cognitive–behavioral treatment program for cannabis use disorders (CANDIS*)
Hoch, E., Noack, R., Henker, J., Pixa, A., Höfler, M., Behrendt, S., Bühringer, G., & Wïttchen, H. (2011) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.014 · Cited by 60 · cited 3×
“(2012) randomized 122 adolescents and adults (aged 16–44) with cannabis dependence to (a) 10 sessions of CBT þME þ TAU or (b) WL control (Hoch et al., 2012).”
MethodTreatment of Marijuana Dependence: Preliminary Results
Roffman, R. A., Stephens, R. S., Simpson, E. E., & Whitaker, D. L. (1988) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.1988.10524382 · Cited by 52
Marijuana discontinuation, anxiety symptoms, and relapse to marijuana
Bonn‐Miller, M. O., & Moos, R. H. (2009) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.04.009 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“Cannabis users report that withdrawal symptoms are the primary reason for relapse (Bonn-Miller & Moos, 2009; Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Thostenson, & Bursac, 2008; Cornelius, Chung, Martin, Clark, & Wood, 2007).”
BackgroundFactors in Marijuana Cessation among High-Risk Youth
Weiner, M. D., Sussman, S. Y., McCuller, W. J., & Lichtman, K. (1999) · Journal of Drug Education · doi:10.2190/pn5u-n5xb-f0vb-r2v1 · Cited by 40
Primary outcomes in two randomized controlled trials of treatments for cannabis use disorders
Peters, E. N., Nich, C., & Carroll, K. M. (2011) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.04.021 · Cited by 21
Review on psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis disorders
Zimmermann, P., Mühlig, S., Sonntag, D., Bühringer, G., & Wïttchen, H. (2004) · SUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and Practice · doi:10.1024/2004.05.07 · Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bakan D., 1967, On method
- Borenstein M., 1999, Comprehensive meta-analysis, a computer program for research synthesis
- Johnston L. D., 1995, National survey results on drug use from the monitoring the future study, 1975-1994
- Johnston L. D., 2003, Monitoring the future: National survey results on drug use, 1975-2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder
Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Le Foll, B., Hoch, E., Budney, A. J., & Hall, W. D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4 · Cited by 552
Co-use of Alcohol and Cannabis: A Review
Yurasek, A. M., Aston, E. R., & Metrik, J. (2017) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-017-0149-8 · Cited by 389
DiClemente, C. C., Corno, C. M., Graydon, M. M., Wiprovnick, A. E., & Knoblach, D. J. (2017) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000318 · Cited by 294
Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder
Gates, P. J., Sabioni, P., Copeland, J., Le Foll, B., & Gowing, L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4 · Cited by 282
Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders
McKay, J. R. (2017) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13502 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, M. L., Powers, M. B., Handelsman, P., Medina, J. L., Zvolensky, M., & Smits, J. A. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Roosevelt University (US)
- University of Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Michelle L.
- Venue
- Evaluation & the Health Professions
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-04-02
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-114
- ISSN
- 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3918
- PMC
- PMC4429893
- OpenAlex
- W2170981263
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01da027533-04)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA027533, R34DA031038, F31DA036919, K01DA035930)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Keywords
- cannabis use disorder, behavior therapy, contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment effectiveness, waitlist control, active control, psychosocial functioning
- MeSH terms
- Marijuana Abuse, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
