Alcohol and drug treatment outcome studies: new methodological review (2005–2010) and comparison with past reviews (original) (raw)
Related papers
Alcohol treatment outcome evaluation methodology: State of the art 1980–1984
Addictive Behaviors, 1987
The methodology of alcohol treatment outcome studies published during two sequential intervals from 1976 through mid-1984 is critically reviewed. Although considerable methodological improvements have occurred over time, major methodological deficiencies continue to characterize much of the literature, with inadequate reporting of subjects' pretreatment characteristics (e.g., severity of dependence) being the most striking problem. Pervasive differences across studies regarding the types of data gathered and the ways in which findings are reported seriously impede attempts to compare studies and weaken the types of conclusions that can be drawn about treatment efficacy in general. It is suggested that journal editors establish standards of reporting for follow-up studies.
Addictive Behaviors
Although several critiques of the methodology of alcohol treatment outcome studies have been published, similar reviews of the methodology of drug treatment outcome studies are lacking. This paper reviews the methodology of drug treatment outcome studies published from 1993 through 1997 and draws comparisons with the most recent methodological review of alcohol treatment outcome studies. Each drug study was evaluated as to whether the following types of data were reported: (1) demographic, (2) drug use, (3) study characteristics, and (4) outcome and follow-up information. Although results for drug studies showed some areas of strength compared to alcohol studies, in general, the weaknesses were similar to or worse than in the alcohol field, including inadequate reporting of demographic and drug use variables. Weaknesses in follow-up procedures were particularly notable. Suggestions for improving the reporting of methodological and outcome variables for drug treatment outcome studies...
Alcohol treatment outcome methodology: State of the art 1989–1993
Addictive Behaviors, 1997
This article reviews the 61 alcohol treatment outcome studies published from 1989-1993 with respect to methodology. Although better assessment of subjects' pretreatment characteristics was noted, a minority of studies met even the basic requirements of experimental studies. Further. some reversals of methodological progress were observed in several areas. particularly in collecting outcome data from multiple sources. It is suggested that funding agencies and journal editors require that submissions meet minimum standards for adequate outcome evaluation. We would like to thank Karen Hobdon and Mariella DeFilippo for their assistance with this project. Requests for reprints should be sent to Curtis Breslin.
How should the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems be evaluated?
Drugs and Alcohol Today, 2007
In times of information overload, researchers have found ways to synthesise a large amount of data from numerous studies bearing on the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. Two of these ways are discussed: formal meta‐analysis and the box‐score ‘mesa grande’. It is concluded that meta‐analysis cannot answer questions regarding which treatments give the best results in the alcohol field. The mesa grande has certain limitations, which are described, but is useful for the formation of treatment policies when a clear summary of the research evidence on treatment effectiveness is needed. By contrast, large multi‐centre randomised controlled trials with enough statistical power to detect small effects of treatment should normally be preferred when a decision has to be made as to which of two or more specified treatments should be implemented in practice. Unfortunately, two multi‐centre trials, one in the USA and one in the UK, have given rise to the ‘dodo bird’ verdict of equi...
Issues in the definition and measurement of drinking outcomes in alcoholism treatment research
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, 1994
This article reviews methodological and conceptual issues regarding the choice of drinking outcome measures in alcoholism treatment research. The following issues are discussed: Should drinking outcomes be conceptualized in terms of an underlying unitary disorder, or should provision be made for independent outcomes that cover a wide variety of dimensions? Which drinking outcomes are typically measured in treatment evaluation studies and how are they operationalized? What are the empirical associations among drinking outcome measures? If multiple outcomes are measured, which should be given primary importance? Over what period of time should treatment outcome be evaluated? What procedures can be used to detect, correct or prevent the response bias associated with verbal report methods? Because outcome measures need to fit the hypotheses and practical needs of a particular study, it is unlikely that complete standardization can be achieved across all studies. Nevertheless, given the importance of drinking outcomes and the need for economy, two primary dependent measures are recommended: (1) proportion of available drinking days abstinent; and (2) intensity of drinking, as defined by the total amount consumed (in ounces absolute alcohol) during the follow-up period divided by the number of actual drinking days. This article also proposes a strategy that may help to guide the selection of outcome measures in future research. (J. Stud. Alcohol, Supplement No. 12:101-111, 1994) N A 1988 EDITORIAL, Arnold Relman stated, "We can no longer afford to provide health care without knowing more about its successes and faiIures." Applying this admonition to the treatment of alcoholism, the Institute of Medicine (1990, p. 326) recommended that "consensus must be achieved on the need for outcome determination, on the parameters to be used in determining outcome, and on the optimal way(s) to go about making outcome determinations." The goal of this article is to review methodological and conceptual issues regarding the choice of alcohol-related outcome measures in alcoholism treatment research. Alcoholrelated outcomes are the measures of drinking behavior, alcohol dependence symptoms and alcohol-related consequences that are directly attributable to drinking following treatment. A secondary goal of this article is to suggest ways that greater standardization could be introduced to the planning, execution and reporting of treatment research. Because
Drug treatment outcome methodology (1993–1997)
Addictive Behaviors, 2002
Although several critiques of the methodology of alcohol treatment outcome studies have been published, similar reviews of the methodology of drug treatment outcome studies are lacking. This paper reviews the methodology of drug treatment outcome studies published from 1993 through 1997 and draws comparisons with the most recent methodological review of alcohol treatment outcome studies. Each drug study was evaluated as to whether the following types of data were reported: (1) demographic, (2) drug use, (3) study characteristics, and (4) outcome and follow-up information. Although results for drug studies showed some areas of strength compared to alcohol studies, in general, the weaknesses were similar to or worse than in the alcohol field, including inadequate reporting of demographic and drug use variables. Weaknesses in follow-up procedures were particularly notable. Suggestions for improving the reporting of methodological and outcome variables for drug treatment outcome studies are discussed. D
Neuropsychopharmacology, 2012
Although progress has been made in the treatment of alcohol use disorders, more effective treatments are needed. In the last 15 years, several medications have been approved for use in alcohol dependence but have only limited effectiveness and clinical acceptance. While academics have developed some 'standards' for the performance of clinical trials for alcohol dependence, they vary considerably, in the type of populations to be studied, the length of trials, salient outcome measures, and data analyses to be used (especially in the treatment of missing data). This variability impedes the commercial development of medications to treat alcohol dependence. Using a model similar to that used to develop an expert consensus for medications to improve cognitive aspects of schizophrenia (MATRICS) and in the treatment of pain (IMMPACT), a workgroup has been formed under the auspices of ACNP, known as the ACTIVE (Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative) group, to evaluate data from completed clinical trials to develop a consensus on key issues in the conduct of clinical trials in alcohol dependence. ACTIVE consists of academic experts, industry representatives, and staff from the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This paper describes the rationale behind the effort, its history and organization, and initial key questions that have been identified as the primary focus of the workgroup. Future papers will focus on knowledge gained from the re-analysis of completed trials and provide consensus opinions regarding the performance of clinical trials that might be undertaken in the future.
Trials, 2017
The evidence base to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions (ABI) is weakened by variation in the outcomes measured and by inconsistent reporting. The 'Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol' (ORBITAL) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidance for its use in future trials of ABI in a range of settings. An international Special Interest Group was convened through INEBRIA (International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs) to inform the development of a COS for trials of ABI. ORBITAL will incorporate a systematic review to map outcomes used in efficacy and effectiveness trials of ABI and their measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This will support a multi-round Delphi study to prioritise outcomes. Delphi panellists will be drawn from a range of settings and stakeholder groups, and the D...