Article

Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: What's there and what should be

Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region, Via di S Costanza 53, 00198 Rome, Italy.
Drug and alcohol dependence (Impact Factor: 3.28). 01/2011; 113(2-3):96-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.08.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group aims to produce, update, and disseminate systematic reviews on the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of problematic drug and alcohol use. The objective of the present paper was to summarize the main characteristics of the published systematic reviews in the field of drug and alcohol dependence, in terms of the topics covered, methods used to produce the reviews, and available evidence. By January 2010, the Group had published 52 reviews with 694 primary studies included out of 2059 studies considered for inclusion. Of these publications, 44% were published in 12 journals, including Drug and Alcohol Dependence (11%) with the highest number of publications, and 68% were conducted in North America. The majority of included studies (90%) were randomized controlled trials. Evaluating their methodological quality, we found that allocation concealment methods were not properly described in the majority of studies (18% adequate, 73% unclear, 9% inadequate). The percentage of interventions shown to be beneficial varied according to the substance considered: 42% for opioids, 37% for alcohol, 14% for psychostimulants, 7% for polydrugs, and 33% for prevention. Furthermore, 75% of the reviews provided specific information on further research needs. Cochrane reviews provide information on the most effective treatments, particularly in the area of opioid and alcohol dependence, and help clarify areas for further research.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David Foxcroft, Sep 17, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
121 Views
 · 
45 Downloads
  • Source
    • "The progression from occasional into harmful/hazardous drug use is a world-wide health concern and has social and legal implications as well (Amato et al., 2011; Carlini et al., 2007; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011; World Health Organization, 2009). Among university students the level of consumption is higher than in the general population and thus, reducing their consumption will likely have benefits for society as a whole (Andrade, Duarte, & Oliveira, 2010; Dennhardt & Murphy, 2013; Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2012; Silva, Malbergier, Stempliuk, & de Andrade, 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) is a reliable and valid tool to early detection in the harmful and hazardous drug use in primary care settings when administered by interview in the general population. As the risk of substance related problems in university students is high, it is necessary to have screening instruments that can be used beyond the health care settings. Thus, we compared a self-report adaptation of ASSIST with the validated interview format in a convenience sample of university students. A counter-balance design was chosen with students alternating between the interview and the self-report formats. Both formats were completed by all students (n=170) over 30days. The scores for total involvement, tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine obtained from the two formats demonstrated good intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC >0.60). The agreement assessed by kappa between questions of the two formats was considered moderate for tobacco (0.76) and cannabis (0.69) and discrete for alcohol (0.47). The consistency of the self-report questionnaire was also good to moderate (Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 for tobacco, 0.71 for alcohol, 0.86 for cannabis and 0.89 for cocaine) and showed acceptable sensitivity (66.7-100%) and specificity (83.5-97.1%) for tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine when compared to the ASSIST interview format (gold standard). The findings suggest that self-report version is as acceptable as the interview and that the scores on the two formats are comparable. However, the participants reported more motivation for change behavior and more concern about substance use when they were interviewed.
    Addictive behaviors 03/2014; 39(7):1152-1158. DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.014 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Safer injection facilities (SIFs) reduce risks associated with injecting drugs, particularly public injection and overdose mortality. They exist in many countries, but do not exist in the United States. We assessed several ethical, operational, and public health considerations for establishing SIFs in the United States. We used the six-factor Kass framework (goals, effectiveness, concerns, minimization of concerns, fair implementation, and balancing of benefits and concerns), summarized needs of persons who inject drugs in the United States, and reviewed global evidence for SIFs. SIFs offer a hygienic environment to inject drugs, provide sterile injection equipment at time of injection, and allow for safe disposal of used equipment. Injection of pre-obtained drugs, purchased by persons who inject drugs, happens in a facility where trained personnel provide on-site counseling and referral to addiction treatment and health care and intervene in overdose emergency situations. SIFs provide positive health benefits (reducing transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis, bacterial infections, and overdose mortality) without evidence for negative health or social consequences. SIFs serve most-at-risk persons, including those who inject in public or inject frequently, and those who do not use other public health programs. It is critical to address legal, ethical, and local concerns, develop and implement relevant policies and procedures, and assess individual- and community-level needs and benefits of SIFs given local epidemiologic data. SIFs have the potential to reduce viral and bacterial infections and overdose mortality among those who engage in high-risk injection behaviors by offering unique public health services that are complementary to other interventions.
    Drug and alcohol dependence 04/2011; 118(2-3):100-10. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.03.006 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This contribution reviewed the experience of the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) in terms of production of evidence to guide policy and practice. By December 2010, the group had published 55 reviews, with 299 authors involved and 744 primary studies included out of 2114 studies considered for inclusion. 90% of the studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Considering the 'Implication for practice' section of each review, 31% interventions were classified as to do, 11% as do not do it, 52% to do only in research and for 6% a final judgment was impossible because the reviews included no studies or only one study. These proportions varied according to the type of substance of abuse studied; interventions judged as to do were 42% for alcohol, 32% for opioids, 12% for psychostimulants, 33% for poly drugs, and for prevention. The reviews produced by the CDAG provide evidence on effectiveness of several interventions, and identify areas of uncertainty, where more primary research is needed.
    Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 09/2011; 20(3):219-23. DOI:10.1017/S2045796011000412 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Show more