Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention: Drug use
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in drug use (objective) hair and urine analyses compared with no intervention (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention Drug use (objective) hair and urine analyses · drug‐using offenders Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in drug use (objective) hair and urine analyses compared with no intervention (low certainty). Pharmacological interventions for drug‐using offenders (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.72 [0.51, 1] | 2 studies · 237 participants | Low |
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention Drug use self reported dichotomous self report information · drug‐using offenders Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in drug use self reported dichotomous self report information compared with no intervention (low certainty). Pharmacological interventions for drug‐using offenders (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.61 [0.31, 1.18] | 3 studies · 317 participants | Low |
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention Drug use self reported continuous self report information · drug‐using offenders Pharmacological interventions for drug‐using offenders (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 510 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmacological interventions for drug‐using offenders 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.