{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Dennis BB"],"funding":["Canadian Institutes for Health Research Sponsorship Grant","CIHR Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) grant"],"pagination":["30"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC6945391"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["21(1)"],"pubmed_abstract":["BACKGROUND:Given the complex nature of opioid addiction treatment and the rising number of available opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSAT), there is no 'gold standard' measure of treatment effectiveness, and each successive trial measures a different set of outcomes which reflect success in arbitrary or opportune terms. We sought to describe the variation in current outcomes employed across clinical trials for opioid addiction, as well as determine whether a discrepancy exists between the treatment targets that patients consider important and how treatment effectiveness is measured in the literature. METHODS:We searched nine commonly used databases (e.g., EMBASE, MEDLINE) from inception to August 1, 2015. Outcomes used across trials were extracted and categorized according to"],"journal":["Trials"],"pubmed_title":["A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder."],"pmcid":["PMC6945391"],"funding_grant_id":["grant number: 126639","CIHR (sponsor award number 156306)"],"pubmed_authors":["Plater C","Bawor M","Samaan Z","Sanger N","Hillmer A","Bhalerao A","Worster A","Dennis BB","Tugwell P","Baptist-Mohseni N","Corace K","Hutton B","Naji L","Rice D","Woo J","Thabane L"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder.","description":"BACKGROUND:Given the complex nature of opioid addiction treatment and the rising number of available opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSAT), there is no 'gold standard' measure of treatment effectiveness, and each successive trial measures a different set of outcomes which reflect success in arbitrary or opportune terms. We sought to describe the variation in current outcomes employed across clinical trials for opioid addiction, as well as determine whether a discrepancy exists between the treatment targets that patients consider important and how treatment effectiveness is measured in the literature. METHODS:We searched nine commonly used databases (e.g., EMBASE, MEDLINE) from inception to August 1, 2015. Outcomes used across trials were extracted and categorized according to","dates":{"release":"2020-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2020 Jan","modification":"2025-04-20T00:58:31.312Z","creation":"2020-05-22T07:29:06Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC6945391","cross_references":{"pubmed":["31907000"],"doi":["10.1186/s13063-019-3995-y"]}}