CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Efficacy of Intranasal Oxytocin to Enhance Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy

Open access
Flanagan, Julianne C., Nietert, Paul J., McCrady, Barbara S., Sellers, Stacey, Yates-Johnson, Anjinetta, Giff, Sarah T., Forkus, Shannon R.·2025·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
DOI 10.4088/jcp.24m15627PMC PMC12766540
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the efficacy of intranasal oxytocin (40 IU), compared to matching placebo (saline), when combined with Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy (ABCT) for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). and their partner. Dyads in which both partners had AUD were eligible, and both partners in each dyad were randomized to the same drug condition (ie, placebo or oxytocin). Participants were observed in their medication self-administration 30 minutes prior to ABCT therapy sessions. Primary outcome measures were alcohol consumption (percent days drinking and percent days heavy drinking; Time Line Follow-Back) and relationship functioning (Dyadic Adjustment Scale-Short Form). All IPs and 50% of partners met diagnostic criteria for AUD; 62 IPs (64.5%) met criteria for severe AUD. Findings from the intent-to-treat analyses indicate that IPs and partners in both conditions evidenced substantial improvements in alcohol consumption and alcohol problem severity but not relationship functioning. No group differences emerged in alcohol consumption, alcohol problem severity, or relationship functioning at end of treatment. Participants completed an average of 10.2 ABCT sessions (SD = 3.5). There were no group differences in the number of medication doses administered or adverse events. Oxytocin was safe and tolerable but did not provide additional benefit beyond ABCT at the end of treatment. Alternative strategies are necessary to understand oxytocin's potential to facilitate different domains of AUD recovery. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03046836.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a 12-week double-blind RCT, intranasal oxytocin (40 IU) self-administered before Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy did not outperform placebo on alcohol consumption, alcohol problem severity, or relationship functioning among identified patients with AUD. Oxytocin was safe and tolerable, but it conferred no additional benefit beyond ABCT plus placebo.

Key findings

  • Among 96 romantic couples (n=49 oxytocin, n=47 placebo), both groups showed substantial within-group reductions in percent days drinking and percent days heavy drinking from baseline to week 12, with no significant between-group differences: IP oxytocin PDD fell from 65.2% to 36.8% and placebo from 66.2% to 35.9% (both p<0.0001); IP oxytocin PDH fell from 41.5% to 11.8% and placebo from 51.6% to 9.9% (both p<0.0001). Between-group effect sizes were Cohen’s d = −0.01 for PDD and −0.28 for PDH.
  • Alcohol problem severity improved similarly in both groups: IP AUDIT scores decreased from 18.8 to 14.6 in the oxytocin group (p<0.001) and from 18.9 to 13.1 in the placebo group (p<0.0001), with no time × medication condition interaction.
  • Relationship functioning did not improve significantly: DAS-7 scores increased 0.3 points in both IP groups (24.7 to 25.0, Cohen’s d = 0.0), with no significant main effects of time or experimental condition.
  • Retention and tolerability were strong: participants completed an average of 10.2 ABCT sessions (SD=3.5); 73.5% of oxytocin couples and 76.6% of placebo couples completed all 12 sessions; median medication doses were 12 in both groups; median adverse events were 1 in both groups; 9 serious adverse events occurred and were judged unrelated to study procedures.

Methods

  • Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, repeated-measures trial (NCT03046836) enrolling 96 adult romantic couples (total N=192, 51% women) from May 2019 to April 2023; at least one partner met DSM-5 AUD criteria in the past 6 months by QuickSCID, and both partners in each dyad were randomized to the same drug condition. Participants self-administered 40 IU intranasal oxytocin or matching saline 30 minutes before each ABCT session, observed in person or via videoconference.
  • Primary outcomes were percent days drinking and percent days heavy drinking via TimeLine FollowBack and relationship functioning via DAS-7; AUDIT assessed alcohol problem severity and stratified randomization. Analyses used intent-to-treat end-of-treatment outcomes among identified patients with general linear mixed models including time, treatment group, time × treatment group, covariates for sex, baseline AUDIT, and baseline DAS-7, random subject effects, and autoregressive covariance; Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated.
  • A priori power analysis estimated n=70 couples would yield 80% power to detect between-group differences in PDD and PHDD with effect sizes of 0.6 (9% or greater change in PDD and 6% or greater change in PHDD), assuming 30% attrition and a final target of N=100 couples; this sample size also yielded 80% power to detect a 4-point DAS-7 difference.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the sample was severely limited in sociodemographic diversity: most IPs were men, no participants reported a gender identity different than their sex identified at birth, few same-sex couples enrolled, and few participants identified as a member of a race or ethnic minority group, limiting generalizability.
  • The paper states that it used a single-reporter approach rather than a dual-reporter approach, so corroborating reports of partner drinking might have differed from self-reports; it also did not examine abstinence as a dichotomous outcome, diagnostic remission, rate of drinking improvements, or the collected 3- and 6-month follow-up data, and it was powered to detect moderate differences, so subtler oxytocin effects would require a larger sample.
  • Evident from the text: enrollment occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, with all participants enrolled after March 17, 2020 (n=74 couples) completing the project via telehealth, and some telehealth participants did not complete an in-person history and physical exam; the sample was predominantly white (90.1%), married (64.5%), and not Hispanic (95.4%).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.24m15627

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 29 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    No group differences emerged in alcohol problem severity at end of treatment.

    “No group differences emerged in alcohol consumption, alcohol problem severity, or relationship functioning at end of treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    There were no group differences in adverse events.

    “There were no group differences in the number of medication doses administered or adverse events.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants completed an average of 10.2 ABCT sessions (SD=3.5).

    “Participants completed an average of 10.2 ABCT sessions (SD=3.5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    IPs and partners in both conditions evidenced substantial improvements in alcohol consumption.

    “IPs and partners in both conditions evidenced substantial improvements in alcohol consumption and alcohol problem severity but not relationship functioning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    No group differences emerged in alcohol consumption at end of treatment.

    “No group differences emerged in alcohol consumption, alcohol problem severity, or relationship functioning at end of treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 35
  • May combine two claims. 20

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Factors such as small sample sizes, underpowered and exploratory designs, measurement inconsistencies in laboratory versus naturalistic trials, and wide variability in dosing potency and strategy have shaped the complexity of the clinical oxytocin literature.

    “Factors such as small sample sizes, underpowered and exploratory designs, measurement inconsistencies in laboratory versus naturalistic trials, and wide variability in dosing potency and strategy have all shaped the complexity of the clinical oxytocin literature to date13–15.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ryabinin AE, Zhang Y. Barriers and breakthroughs in targeting the oxytocin system to treat alcohol use disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13:842609. [PubMed: 35295777]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [14] Mierop A, Mikolajczak M, Stahl C, et al. How can intranasal oxytocin research be trusted? A systematic review of the interactive effects of intranasal oxytocin on psychosocial outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020;15(5):1228–1242. [PubMed: 32633663] source
    • cites [15] Quintana DS, Lischke A, Grace S, et al. Advances in the field of intranasal oxytocin research: lessons learned and future directions for clinical research. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26(1):80– source

      The ‘Future directions for clinical research using intranasal oxytocin’ section identifies low statistical power and analytical flexibility as methodological problems. ‘What is the most efficacious dose and timing of intranasal oxytocin?’ explains that dose, timing, and administration devices can affect responses. These sections do not establish measurement inconsistencies between laboratory and naturalistic trials or variability in dosing potency specifically; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Intranasal oxytocin's effects on both social and addictive behaviors in clinical studies are inconsistent and impacted by various methodological differences.

    “intranasal oxytocin's effects on both social and addictive behaviors in clinical studies are inconsistent and impacted by various methodological differences emerging in this rapidly proliferating literature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ryabinin AE, Zhang Y. Barriers and breakthroughs in targeting the oxytocin system to treat alcohol use disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13:842609. [PubMed: 35295777]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [14] Mierop A, Mikolajczak M, Stahl C, et al. How can intranasal oxytocin research be trusted? A systematic review of the interactive effects of intranasal oxytocin on psychosocial outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020;15(5):1228–1242. [PubMed: 32633663] source
    • cites [15] Quintana DS, Lischke A, Grace S, et al. Advances in the field of intranasal oxytocin research: lessons learned and future directions for clinical research. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26(1):80– source

      The Introduction reports failures to replicate intranasal oxytocin’s social-cognition effects and methodological shortcomings; the Future directions section also identifies design and replication issues. Our copy does not extend that assessment to addictive behaviors. Its References list trials concerning alcohol withdrawal and craving, but those titles do not establish inconsistent effects or the role of methodological differences in addiction studies (no page numbers available). (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Literature on oxytocin's effects on social cognition and behavior among romantic couples has yielded mixed findings.

    “A smaller literature has examined oxytocin's effects on social cognition and behavior among romantic couples, however, this literature has yielded mixed findings3–6.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [3] Grebe NM, Kristoffersen AA, Grøntvedt TV, et al. Oxytocin and vulnerable romantic relationships. Hormones and Behavior. 2017;90:64–74. [PubMed: 28254475] source
    • cites [4] Flanagan JC, Fischer MS, Nietert PJ, et al. Effects of Oxytocin on Cortisol Reactivity and Conflict Resolution Behaviors among Couples with Substance Misuse. Psychiatry Research. 2018;260:346– source
    • cites [5] Flanagan JC, Nietert PJ, Sippel L, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effects of Intranasal Oxytocin on Alcohol Craving and Intimate Partner Aggression among Couples. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2022;152:14–24. [PubMed: 35709548] source

      The Introduction (Oxytocin: Modulator of Social Behavior and Aggression; page unavailable) describes differing findings on oxytocin and aggression, and the Discussion (page unavailable) calls the broader literature inconsistent. The paper studies romantic couples, but it does not establish that a body of studies specifically on social cognition and behavior among romantic couples has yielded mixed findings. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [6] Ditzen B, Nater UM, Schaer M, et al. Sex-specific effects of intranasal oxytocin on autonomic nervous system and emotional responses to couple conflict. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2012;8(8):897–902. [PubMed: 22842905] source

      The Introduction says studies comparing oxytocin’s effects in men and women are rare and partly conflicting, while the Results report different responses in men and women during couple conflict. The paper does not establish that findings across the literature specifically on romantic couples are mixed; its statement about conflicting studies concerns oxytocin research more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    62 IPs (64.5%) met criteria for severe AUD.

    “62 IPs (64.5%) met criteria for severe AUD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    50% of partners met diagnostic criteria for AUD.

    “All IPs and 50% of partners met diagnostic criteria for AUD”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Most participants reported some college education.

    “Most participants reported some college education, although IPs in the placebo group reported having slightly more years of education than IPs in the oxytocin group (median = 16.0 vs. 15.5, p=0.03).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Although diagnostic severity was most often mild and heavy drinking days were less frequent, partners reported a high frequency of total drinking days at baseline.

    “although diagnostic severity was most often mild and heavy drinking days were less frequent, partners reported a high frequency of total drinking days at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    DAS-7 scores increased 0.3 points for both the oxytocin and placebo IPs, but these increases (from 24.7 to 25.0, Cohen's d = 0.0) were not statistically significant.

    “DAS-7 scores increased 0.3 points for both the oxytocin and placebo IPs, but these increases (from 24.7 to 25.0, Cohen's d = 0.0) were not statistically significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Most IPs were men (72.9%).

    “Most IPs were men (72.9%), met diagnostic criteria for severe AUD (64.5%), and reported drinking on approximately two thirds of days at baseline (M=65.7%, 95% CI: 58.2% - 73.1%) and heavy drinking on nearly half the days at baseline (M=46.5%, 95% CI: 40.4% to 52.7%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    For relationship functioning, there were no significant main effects of time or experimental condition.

    “For relationship functioning, there were no significant main effects of time or experimental condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    At baseline, partners reported drinking on more than one third of days (M=42.5%, 95% CI: 36.5% - 48.6%).

    “At baseline, partners reported drinking on more than one third of days (M=42.5%, 95% CI: 36.5% - 48.6%), but heavy drinking was less frequent (M=13.6%, 95% CI: 10.2% to 17.1%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    For both PDD (Cohen's d = −0.01) and PDH (Cohen's d = −0.28), the declines were not statistically significantly different between the oxytocin and placebo IP groups.

    “For both PDD (Cohen's d = −0.01) and PDH (Cohen's d = −0.28), the declines were not statistically significantly different between the oxytocin and placebo IP groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Most participants were married (64.5%).

    “Most participants were married (64.5%), identified as white (90.1%), and did not endorse Hispanic ethnicity (95.4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Most participants identified as white (90.1%).

    “Most participants were married (64.5%), identified as white (90.1%), and did not endorse Hispanic ethnicity (95.4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    IPs reported drinking on approximately two thirds of days at baseline (M=65.7%, 95% CI: 58.2% - 73.1%).

    “Most IPs were men (72.9%), met diagnostic criteria for severe AUD (64.5%), and reported drinking on approximately two thirds of days at baseline (M=65.7%, 95% CI: 58.2% - 73.1%) and heavy drinking on nearly half the days at baseline (M=46.5%, 95% CI: 40.4% to 52.7%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 12 ABCT sessions. Oxytocin also evidenced strong tolerability in this trial. Groups did

    The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections (35), gastrointestinal symptoms (30), and sinusitis (16).

    “The most common adverse events (AEs) were upper respiratory tract infections (35), gastrointestinal symptoms (30), and sinusitis (16).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Most participants did not endorse Hispanic ethnicity (95.4%).

    “Most participants were married (64.5%), identified as white (90.1%), and did not endorse Hispanic ethnicity (95.4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Partners reported heavy drinking less frequently (M=13.6%, 95% CI: 10.2% to 17.1%).

    “At baseline, partners reported drinking on more than one third of days (M=42.5%, 95% CI: 36.5% - 48.6%), but heavy drinking was less frequent (M=13.6%, 95% CI: 10.2% to 17.1%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Results

    IPs in the placebo group reported having slightly more years of education than IPs in the oxytocin group (median = 16.0 vs. 15.5, p=0.03).

    “Most participants reported some college education, although IPs in the placebo group reported having slightly more years of education than IPs in the oxytocin group (median = 16.0 vs. 15.5, p=0.03).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Oxytocin was feasible, safe, and tolerable, and did not confer harm in this trial.

    “While feasible, safe, and tolerable”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “but it did not confer harm”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Most IPs were men, no participants reported a gender identity different than their sex identified at birth, and few same-sex couples enrolled.

    “Most IPs were men, no participants reported a gender identity different than their sex identified at birth, and few same-sex couples enrolled.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    The social salience hypothesis proposes that oxytocin is more likely to amplify one's existing social tendencies rather than selectively enhancing prosocial or adaptive cognition and behavior.

    “the social salience hypothesis16, which proposes that oxytocin is more likely to amplify one's existing social tendencies rather than selectively enhancing prosocial or adaptive cognition and behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Couples were randomized in a 1:1 manner to the oxytocin or placebo condition, stratified by sex and alcohol problem severity of the IP.

    “Couples were randomized in a 1:1 manner to the oxytocin or placebo condition, stratified by sex and alcohol problem severity of the IP (assessed by the AUDIT29).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Only three published studies have examined a simultaneous treatment approach: one for schizophrenia with null findings and two preliminary pilot studies for PTSD with positive findings.

    “Only three published studies to our knowledge have examined a simultaneous treatment approach: one for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia with null findings19 and two preliminary pilot studies for the treatment of PTSD with positive findings20,21.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [20]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [21]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    Randomization was carried out by a research pharmacist not involved in clinical management of participants to preserve the double-blind design.

    “Randomization was carried out by a research pharmacist not involved in clinical management of participants to preserve the double-blind design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    All investigators, participants, and study staff were blind to drug condition.

    “All investigators, participants, and study staff were blind to drug condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Sessions were video recorded and were available to the study therapy supervisor to review on an as-needed basis.

    “Sessions were video recorded (provided both partners gave informed consent to do so) and were available to the study therapy supervisor to review on an as-needed basis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Abstract

    Oxytocin was safe and tolerable.

    “Oxytocin was safe and tolerable but did not provide additional benefit beyond ABCT at the end of treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Methods

    ABCT therapy sessions were delivered by trained doctoral-level clinicians consistent with the published manual.

    “ABCT therapy sessions were delivered by trained doctoral-level clinicians consistent with the published manual22.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    All participants enrolled after March 17, 2020 (n = 74 couples) completed the project via telehealth because of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

    “All participants enrolled after March 17, 2020 (n = 74 couples) completed the project via telehealth because of the global COVID-19 pandemic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and repeated measures design was used.

    “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and repeated measures design was used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    ABCT is a conjoint evidence-based cognitive behavioral treatment.

    “Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy (ABCT)22 is a conjoint evidence-based cognitive behavioral treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Oxytocin was FDA-approved for investigational use in this project.

    “All study procedures were IRB-approved, and oxytocin was FDA-approved for investigational use in this project.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    All study procedures were IRB-approved.

    “All study procedures were IRB-approved, and oxytocin was FDA-approved for investigational use in this project.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Study supervision was conducted weekly and therapists completed a compliance checklist at every session.

    “Study supervision was conducted weekly and therapists completed a compliance checklist at every session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Oxytocin has been shown to exert prosocial properties such as trust, empathy, social memory, affect recognition, and generosity in some studies.

    “oxytocin has been shown to exert prosocial properties such as trust, empathy, social memory, affect recognition, and generosity in some studies1,2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] MacDonald K, MacDonald TM. The peptide that binds: a systematic review of oxytocin and its prosocial effects in humans. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2010;18(1):1–21. [PubMed: 20047458] source
    • cites [2] Graustella AJ, MacLeod C. A critical review of the influence of oxytocin nasal spray on social cognition in humans: evidence and future directions. Hormones and Behavior. 2012;61(3):410–418. [PubMed: 22265852] source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    The funding sources were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or decision to submit the manuscript.

    “The funding sources were not involved in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of this manuscript, or the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Discussion

    The study had a high rate of retention for follow-ups.

    “we collected 3- and 6-month follow up assessment data and had a high rate of retention for follow-ups (see Figure 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Strong retention also ensured that a more than adequate proportion of participants received the intended treatment dose, eliminating concerns about possible confounds related to implementation of the behavioral platform, medication adherence, or missing data.

    “Strong retention also ensured that a more than adequate proportion of participants received the intended treatment dose, eliminating concerns about possible confounds related to implementation of the behavioral platform, medication adherence, or missing data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The fact that ABCT organically incorporates transparency with regard to drinking self-reports within session offsets this concern somewhat and lends additional confidence to the integrity of self-reports in this study.

    “The fact that ABCT organically incorporates transparency with regard to drinking self-reports within session offsets this concern somewhat and lends additional confidence to the integrity of self-reports in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    These estimates assumed 30% attrition during the treatment phase, resulting in a final target sample of N = 100 couples.

    “These estimates assumed 30% attrition during the treatment phase, resulting in our final target sample of N = 100 couples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Hypothesis testing focused on end-of-treatment outcomes among IPs using an intent-to-treat framework.

    “Hypothesis testing focused on end-of-treatment outcomes among IPs using an intent-to-treat framework.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Although participants in this trial completed 1-2 more sessions, on average, than prior ABCT-only trials, alcohol consumption outcomes were similar and relationship adjustment findings were lower in magnitude, suggesting that a higher ABCT treatment dose in the absence of drug effects did not result in better drinking or relationship functioning outcomes.

    “Although participants in this trial completed 1–2 more sessions, on average, than prior ABCT-only trials, alcohol consumption outcomes were similar and relationship adjustment findings were lower in magnitude, suggesting that a higher ABCT treatment dose in the absence of drug effects did not result in better drinking or relationship functioning outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    This study was powered to detect moderate differences between treatment groups.

    “Finally, this study was powered to detect moderate differences between treatment groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    We are not aware of any prior trials in the AUD field that have administered medication to a romantic partner to mobilize alcohol consumption or problem severity improvements.

    “we are not aware of any prior trials in the AUD field that have administered medication to a romantic partner to mobilize alcohol consumption or problem severity improvements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: No prior trials have examined the efficacy of oxytocin versus placebo in combination with any behavioral AUD treatment, and none have done so with couples.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Retention was substantially higher than anticipated throughout the trial and AEs were minimal, suggesting that intranasal oxytocin was safe, tolerable, and feasible in this population, including in the context of home-based telehealth administration.

    “Retention was substantially higher than anticipated throughout the trial and AEs were minimal, suggesting that intranasal oxytocin was safe, tolerable, and feasible in this population, including in the context of home-based telehealth administration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    The sample was highly generalizable in terms of variability in AUD severity among IPs and inclusion of partners with AUD.

    “while the sample was highly generalizable in terms of variability in AUD severity among IPs and inclusion of partners with AUD”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Few participants identified as a member of a race or ethnic minority group, limiting generalizability of the sample.

    “Further, few participants identified as a member of a race or ethnic minority group, all of which limit generalizability of the sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
48 of 48

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior trials have examined the efficacy of oxytocin versus placebo in combination with any behavioral AUD treatment, and none have done so with couples.

    “Although other trials examining the ability of oxytocin to enhance behavioral treatment outcomes are underway, no prior trials have examined the efficacy of oxytocin versus placebo in combination with any behavioral AUD treatment, and none have done so with couples.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fewer medications are suited for, or have been examined using simultaneous administration with, the purpose of optimizing within- or between-session gains.

    “Fewer medications are suited for, or have been examined using simultaneous administration with, the purpose of optimizing within- or between-session gains.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Oxytocin is a short-acting medication, and there is no precedent to expect delayed drug effects long after medication administration stopped.

    “oxytocin is a short-acting medication, and there is no precedent to expect delayed drug effects long after medication administration stopped.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AUD is a heterogeneous condition with regard to etiology, course, and treatment.

    “AUD is a heterogeneous condition with regard to etiology, course, and treatment”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Oxytocin may be particularly well suited to augment dyadic interventions due to its prosocial effects.

    “It may be particularly well suited to augment dyadic interventions due to its prosocial effects.”
5 of 5

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.

  • Week-12 AUDIT mean falls outside its confidence interval

    Minor

    Table 3 reports a week-12 AUDIT mean of 14.3 for identified patients in the oxytocin group whose partners have AUD, but its stated 95% confidence interval is 15.7 to 16.3. The reported mean is below the interval's lower bound.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Flanagan, J. C., Nietert, P. J., McCrady, B. S., Sellers, S., Yates-Johnson, A., Giff, S. T., & Forkus, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Publisher
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
Published
2025-05-12
Volume
86
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-2101
DOI
10.4088/jcp.24m15627
PMC
PMC12766540
OpenAlex
W4410207507
Cited by
3
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
intranasal oxytocin, alcoholism, alcohol consumption, heavy drinking, relationship functioning, dyadic adjustment, partner involvement
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adult, Alcoholism

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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