Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention: Criminal activity ‐ Re‐incarceration
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Re‐incarceration official records compared with no intervention (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention Criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Re‐incarceration official records · drug‐using offenders Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Re‐incarceration official records compared with no intervention (low certainty). Pharmacological interventions for drug‐using offenders (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.77 [0.36, 1.64] | 3 studies · 472 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.