↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas C Clark, Nicholas Lintzeris, Alan Gijsbers, Greg Whelan, Adrian Dunlop, Alison Ritter, Walter W Ling

Abstract

LAAM and methadone are both full mu opiate agonists and have been shown to reduce dependence on heroin when given continuously under supervised dosing conditions. LAAM has a long duration of action requiring dosing every two or three days compared to methadone which requires daily dosing. LAAM is not as widely available internationally as methadone, and may be withdrawn from the market following ten cases of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias and an association with QT prolongation. To compare the efficacy and acceptability of LAAM maintenance with methadone maintenance in the treatment of heroin dependence. We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2000), PsycINFO (1887 to August 2000), EMBASE (January 1985 to August 2000), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2 2000). In addition we hand searched NIDA monographs until August 2000 and searched reference lists of articles. All randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled prospective studies comparing LAAM and methadone maintenance for the treatment of heroin dependence and measuring outcomes of efficacy or acceptability were included. Data on retention in treatment, heroin use, side-effects and mortality were collected by two reviewers independently. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Eighteen studies, (15 RCTs, 3 Controlled prospective studies) met the inclusion criteria for the review. Three were excluded from the meta-analysis due to lack of data on retention, heroin use or mortality. Cessation of allocated medication (11 studies, 1473 participants) was greater with LAAM than with methadone, (RR 1.36, 95%CI 1.07-1.73, p=0.001, NNT=7.7 (or 8)). Non-abstinence was less with LAAM (5 studies, 983 participants; RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.72-0.91, p=0.0003, NNT=9.1 (or 10)). In 10 studies (1441 participants) there were 6 deaths from a range of causes, 5 in participants assigned to LAAM (RR 2.28 (95%CI 0.59-8.9, p=0.2). other relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and criminal activity could not be analysed because of lack of information in the primary studies. LAAM appears more effective than methadone at reducing heroin use. More LAAM patients than methadone ceased their allocated medication during the studies, but many transferred to methadone and so the significance of this is unclear. There was no difference in safety observed, although there was not enough evidence to comment on uncommon adverse events.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Other 5 6%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Psychology 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 26 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2012.
All research outputs
#5,500,390
of 17,076,095 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,063
of 11,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,606
of 275,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,076,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.