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.
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
“First, consistent with prediction, BT outperformed control conditions when all outcome and time variables were combined (Hedges’ g = 0.44), indicating an effect for BT relative to control conditions overall.”
§ 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.
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
“Third, consistent with prediction, BT significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (Hedges’ g = 0.42)”
§ 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.
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
“There were also no significant differences between group and individual treatment formats in the in-person treatments (p = .78).”
§ 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
“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: passes — 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
“Analyses revealed that it would require more than 101 current or future unpublished studies with an effect size of 0 to bring the overall effect size of the primary analyses within the nonsignificant range”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
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 effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
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 meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled BT trials (n = 2,027) largely supported the study hypotheses.”
§ 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: passes — 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
“However, it should also be noted that BT outperformed WL control treatments, but not active control treatments.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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
“Additionally, there was a significant difference in effect sizes between those studies with active control comparisons and those studies with WL controls, such that effect sizes of BT were larger for studies with WL control comparisons.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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 our prediction, there was not a dose–response relationship.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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
“However, it should also be noted that BT outperformed WL control treatments, but not active control treatments.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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 suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than approximately 69% of those in the control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.”
§ 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.
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 suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on measures of psychosocial functioning.”
§ 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.
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
“These results suggest that the average patient receiving a behavioral intervention fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
“This finding suggests that the average patient receiving BT treatment fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
§ 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.
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
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
“suggesting that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on psychosocial measures.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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 suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
In the paper
“In our previous meta-analysis (Dutra et al., 2008), abstinence rates ranged only between 10% and 37%.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
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 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
“suggesting that specialized, potent therapeutic ingredients may be required to reduce relapse in this population.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“the lack of differences seen among different treatment formats suggest that more cost-effective treatment dissemination strategies (e.g., group treatment or web/telephone-based delivery) have the potential to be as efficacious for this population as individual, in-person treatment strategies.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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
“The results are promising, suggesting that current BTs are superior to control conditions (TAU, PsychPL, and WL).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“of those who achieve abstinence during this time, about 1/2 relapse within 1 year (Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007; Dutra et al., 2008).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“abstinence rates from use are still quite low.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites McRae, Budney, and Brady, 2003
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.
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
“It should be noted, however, that these moderator analyses may have been underpowered, given the relatively small number of studies with each moderator.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“First, the aggregated effect reported in the Dutra’s study is not indicative of the aggregate effect of treatment for CUDs alone.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonn-Miller & Moos, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Thostenson, & Bursac, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Cornelius, Chung, Martin, Clark, & Wood, 2007
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the most effective treatment to date for cannabis dependence (BT) yields only a 50% abstinence rate during the first 2-weeks of intervention (Budney, Moore, Rocha, & Higgins, 2006; Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007; Kadden et al., 2007).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Budney, Moore, Rocha, & Higgins, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Kadden et al., 2007
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.
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
“suggesting that the findings in this meta-analysis are robust.”
- Also stated in: § Major Findings · plain
“Finally, publication bias analyses revealed that the findings in this meta-analysis are robust.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
- Also stated in: § Major Findings · plain
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
“suggesting that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 69% of those in control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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 indicates that BT for cannabis use may not be robust against more active control treatments.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
In the paper
“A priori research points to the endocannabinoid system (Clapper, Mangieri, & Piomelli, 2009) as one augmentative potential treatment target.”
§ 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, Mangieri, & Piomelli, 2009
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 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
“Additionally, by not including RCTs conducted among adolescents, these results may not be truly representative of individuals with CUD or problematic, high frequency use.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
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.
In the paper
“The aggregated treatment effect suggested that across outcomes, the average individual undergoing any active behavioral treatment for any SUD should fare significantly better than 67% of individuals in control conditions.”
§ 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
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“Though the number of studies with active control treatments available for inclusion in the analysis was limited (i.e., three studies) and should thus be interpreted cautiously”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
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.
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
“all individuals in all included RCTs were seeking treatment for their cannabis use”
§ 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.
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
“there were still only 10 trials currently that included such controls.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plainn = 10- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Clapper et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Gobbi et al., 2005
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.
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
“suggesting problematic usage.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
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.
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
“Therefore, reducing relapse rates, thereby increasing the effectiveness of CUD treatments by and large, may require pharmacological or psychological augmentative treatment strategies that can attenuate endocannabinoid withdrawal.”
§ 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.
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
“This limited number of studies may have also affected the power to detect moderators.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rooke et al., 2013
- Not checked yetcites Gates et al., 2012
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. 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
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
