Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Topics

Temas

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Pooled analysis of retention in treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Pooled analysis of retention in treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 1 Reductions in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 1 Reductions in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 2 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 2 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 3 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 3 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 4 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 4 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 5 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 5 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 6 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 6 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 7 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 7 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 8 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 8 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 9 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 9 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 10 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 10 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 11 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 11 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 12 Symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 12 Symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 13 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 13 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 14 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 14 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 15 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 15 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Intervention versus treatment as usual control, Outcome 1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Intervention versus treatment as usual control, Outcome 1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Intervention versus treatment as usual control, Outcome 2 Reduction in severity of cannabis use disorder.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Intervention versus treatment as usual control, Outcome 2 Reduction in severity of cannabis use disorder.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 2 Point‐prevalence abstinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 2 Point‐prevalence abstinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 3 Reduction in joints used per day.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 3 Reduction in joints used per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 4 Reduction in symptoms of dependence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 4 Reduction in symptoms of dependence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 5 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 5 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 6 Treatment completion.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 6 Treatment completion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 7 Improvement in motivation to quit.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 7 Improvement in motivation to quit.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 8 Reduction in alcohol use severity (ASI score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 8 Reduction in alcohol use severity (ASI score).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 9 Reduction in drug use severity (ASI score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 9 Reduction in drug use severity (ASI score).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 10 Reduction in frequency of alcohol use.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Intervention A versus Intervention B, Outcome 10 Reduction in frequency of alcohol use.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Psychosocial intervention compared with inactive control for cannabis use disorder

Patient or population: adults with cannabis use disorder or frequent cannabis use

Settings: out‐patient treatment

Intervention: psychosocial intervention

Comparison: inactive control

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Inactive control

Psychosocial intervention

Cannabis use frequency

at short‐term follow‐up

Mean number of cannabis using days in the past 30 days ranged across control groups from
13.7 to 24.9 days

Mean number of cannabis using days among intervention groups was
5.67 lower

MD 5.67

(3.08 to 8.26)

1144 (6)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderatea,b,c

Point‐prevalence abstinence rates at short‐term follow‐up

Proportion of participants achieving abstinence ranged from 2.70% to 44.21%, with an average of 23.02% across treatments

Average relative risk for achieving abstinence following intervention compared with control was 2.55

RR 2.55

(1.34 to 4.83)

1166 (6)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Lowa,d,e

Cannabis use quantity per day

at short‐term follow‐up

Mean number of joints smoked per day ranged across control groups from
1.2 to 3.6

Mean number of joints smoked per day among intervention groups was
3.55 lower

SMD 3.55 (2.51 to 4.59)

1600 (8)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b,e,f

Symptoms of dependence

at short‐term follow‐up

Mean number of symptoms of dependence ranged across control groups from 2.4 to 5.1

Mean number of symptoms of dependence among intervention groups was
4.15 lower

SMD 4.15 (1.67 to 6.63)

889 (4)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Lowa,d,g

Cannabis‐related problems

at short‐term follow‐up

Mean number of cannabis‐related problems ranged across control groups from
5.01 to 8.92

Mean number of cannabis‐related problems among intervention groups was
3.34 lower

SMD 3.34 (1.26 to 5.42)

2202 (6)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b,c,e

Retention in treatment

Proportion of participants completing treatment ranged from 50.0% to 88.7%, with an average of 71.8% across treatments

On average, 7 out of 10 participants completed treatment as it was intended

ES 0.71

(0.63 to 0.78)

1424 (11)

⊕⊕⊕⊕

Moderatea,e

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
CI: Confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

aAt least 1 study at high risk of other bias

bData conversions were required because of heterogeneity in assessments

cFollow‐up assessment periods varied (range, 7 weeks to 4 months)

dFollow‐up assessment periods varied substantially (range, 3 months to 237 days)

eHeterogeneity in outcome measures

fFollow‐up assessment periods varied substantially (range, 7 weeks to 237 days)

gSmall number of studies (4 studies)

Figuras y tablas -
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 1. Trial follow‐up period

Study and group

Follow‐up period

Bernstein 2009, (1) Brief MET + CBT, (2) assessed control

(1) and (2) at 3 and 12 months from baseline

Bonsack 2011, (1) MET, (2) TAU

(1) and (2) at 3, 6 and 12 months from baseline

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MET

(1), (2) and (3) at end of treatment [14 weeks from baseline]

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

(1), (2) and (3) at end of treatment [14 weeks from baseline], then monthly for 12 months post treatment [data provided for 3, 6, 9 and 12 month assessments]

Carroll 2006, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (2) DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (3) MET + CBT, (4) DC

(1), (2), (3) and (4) at end of treatment [8 weeks from baseline], then at 3 and 6 months post treatment

Carroll 2012, (1) CBT, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CBT + CM‐abs, (4) CM‐abs

(1), (2), (3) and (4) at end of treatment [12 weeks from baseline], then at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post treatment

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT (6‐session), (2) CBT (1‐session), (3) DTC

(1) at an average of 242 days from baseline; (2) at an average of 223.5 days from baseline; (3) at an average of 242.5 days from baseline

de Dios 2012, (1) MM, (2) Assessed control

(1) and (2) at end of treatment [2 weeks from baseline], then at 1 and 2 months from baseline

Edwards 2006, (1) CBT, (2) TAU

(1) and (2) at end of treatment [3 months from baseline], then at 6 months post treatment

Fischer 2012, (1) DC‐oral, (2) DC‐workbook, (3) Health promotion‐oral, (4) Health promotion‐workbook

(1), (2), (3) and (4) at 3 and 12 months post treatment

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

(1) at end of treatment [8‐12 weeks from baseline], then at 3 and 6 months from baseline; (2) at 8‐12 weeks

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

(1) at end of treatment [8 weeks], then at 3 and 6 months from baseline; (2) at 8 weeks

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT (3 months), (2) MET + CBT (1 month), (3) DTC

(1) at 1 month post treatment; (2) at 3 months post treatment; (3) at 4 months post baseline

Kadden 2007 (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) TAU

(1), (2), (3) and (4) at end of treatment [2 month follow‐up] and at 5, 8, 11 and 14 months from baseline

Lee 2013, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

(1) and (2) at 3 and 6 months from baseline

Litt 2013, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT + CM‐adh, (3) TAU

(1), (2) and (3) at end of treatment [2 months from baseline], then at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post treatment

Madigan 2013, (1) MET + CBT, (2) TAU

(1) and (2) at 3 and 12 months from baseline

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

(1) and (2) at 4, 9 and 15 months from baseline; (3) at 4 months from baseline

Roffman 1988, (1) RP, (2) SS

(1) and (2) at end of treatment [12 weeks], then at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post treatment [only data from 1 month follow‐up are provided]

Stein 2011, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

(1) and (2) at 1, 3 and 6 months from baseline

Stephens 1994, (1) RP, (2) SS

(1) and (2) at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post treatment

Stephens 2000, (1) CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

(1) at 1 month from baseline [during treatment], at end of treatment [4 months from baseline] then at 3, 9 and 12 months post treatment; (2) at end of treatment [1 month from baseline] then at 3, 6, 12 and 15 months post treatment; (3) at 4 months from baseline

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) DC, (3) DTC

(1) and (2) end of treatment [7 weeks from baseline], then at 6 and 12 months from baseline; (3) at 7 weeks from baseline

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

MM: Mindfulness‐based meditation

RP: Relapse prevention

SS: Social support

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Trial follow‐up period
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis use frequency

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Bernstein 2009, (1) Brief MET + CBT, (2) Assessed control

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 19.0 ± 10.9, N = 68, (2) 15.3 ± 10.1, N = 71

(1) 11.0 ± 10.7, N = 42 [69.1%], (2) 13.2 ± 11.7, N = 55 [77.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.024

Bonsack 2011, (1) MET, (2) TAU

Days abstinent in prior ‘month’ (median ± range)

(1) 5.0 ± 24, N = 30, (2) 3.0 ± 27, N = 32

(1) 5.5 ± 28, N = 25 [83.3%], (2) 8.5 ± 28, N = 29 [90.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MI

Days used in prior 30 days (least squares mean ± SE)

(1) 24.1 ± 1.8, N = 20, (2) 20.4 ± 1.8, N = 20, (3) 23.2 ± 1.8, N = 20

(1) 6.6 ± 2.6, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 7.4 ± 2.3, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 13.0 ± 2.1, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 25.3 ± 8.0, N = 30, (2) 25.5 ± 7.4, N = 30, (3) 26.0 ± 6.2, N = 30

(1) 12.5 ± 13.9, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) 18.3 ± 15.7, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) 18.1 ± 13.6, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Carroll 2006, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (2) DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh. (3) MET + CBT, (4) DC

Proportion of days used post treatment (mean ± SE)

(1) n/a, N = 33, (2) n/a, N = 34, (3) n/a, N = 36, (4) n/a, N = 33

(1) 0.64 ± 0.06, N = 27 [81.8%], (2) 0.75 ± 0.1, N = 24 [70.6%], (3) 0.73 ± 0.05, N = 27 [75.0%], (4) 0.71 ± 0.06, N = 30 [90.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value = 0.02; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value = 0.02;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Carroll 2012, (1) CBT, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CBT + CM‐abs, (4) CM‐abs

Days used in prior 28 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 15.6 ± 9.8, N = 36, (2) 17.6 ± 8.6, N = 32, (3) 17.9 ± 9.6, N = 32, (4) 14.1 ± 10.6, N = 27

(1) Unclear, N = 33 [91.7%], (2) Unclear, N = 25 [78.1%], (3) Unclear, N = 26 [81.3%], (4) Unclear, N = 23 [85.2%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.00; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.00; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4)* P value = 0.00;

(2) vs (4) P value = 0.00

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT [6‐session], (2) CBT [1‐session], (3) DTC

Percent of days abstinent post treatment (mean ± SD)

(1) n/a, N = 78, (2) n/a, N = 82, (3) n/a, N = 69

(1) 35.9 ± 34.8, N = 58 [74.4%], (2) 44.8 ± 37.7, N = 61 [74.4%], (3) 29.7 ± 32.6, N = 52 [75.4%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

de Dios 2012, (1) MM, (2) Assessed control

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 17.0 ± 9.96, N = 22, (2) 18.8 ± 8.1, N = 12

(1) Unclear, N = 16 [72.7%], (2) Unclear, N = 9 [75.0%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.031 across FU

Edwards 2006, (1) DC, (2) TAU

% of days used in prior 4 weeks (mean ± SD)

(1) 39.4 ± 38.4, N = 23, (2) 26.0 ± 28.3, N = 24

(1) 32.4 ± 44.9, N = 16 [69.6%], (2) 19.3 ± 30.4, N = 17 [70.8%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Fischer 2012, (1) DC‐oral, (2) DC‐workbook, (3) Health promotion‐oral, (4) Health promotion‐workbook

Days used in prior 30 days (mean, range)

(1) 21.96, 4.75, N = 24, (2) 24.82, 3.0, N = 47, (3) 21.36, 5.5, N = 25, (4) 25.36, 3.41, N = 37

(1) Unclear, N = Unclear, (2) Unclear, N = Unclear, (3) Unclear, N = Unclear, (4) Unclear, N = Unclear

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Percent reporting abstinence post treatment (%)

(1) n/a, N = 90, (2) n/a, N = 32

(1) 49, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 12.5, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Percent reporting abstinence post treatment (%)

(1) n/a, N = 166, (2) n/a, N = 130

(1) 53.3, N = 166 [100%], (2) 22, N = 106 [81.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT [3 months], (2) MET + CBT [1 month], (3) DTC

Percent of days used in prior 90 days (mean ± SE)

(1) 88.17 ± 1.95, N = 52, (2) 94.19 ± 1.87, N = 56, (3) 94.06 ± 1.95, N = 52

(1) 56.21 ± 4.38, N = 27 [51.9%], (2) 64.90 ± 4.27, N = 37 [66.1%], (3) 86.12 ± 4.38, N = 35 [67.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.0008; (2) vs (3) P value = 0.0002

Kadden 2007 (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Proportion of days used in prior 90 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.11 ± 0.17, N = 63, (2) 0.08 ± 0.13, N = 61, (3) 0.15 ± 0.19, N = 54, (4) 0.08 ± 0.12, N = 62

(1) 27, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) 19, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value < 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05 [P value < 0.05 at 3 month FU only];

(2) vs (4) P value < 0.05

Lee 2013, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 16.5 ± 8.2, N = 106, (2) 15.6 ± 8.8, N = 106

(1) 13.2 ± 10.6, N = 89 [84.0%], (2) 11.7 ± 11.1, N = 86 [81.1%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Litt 2013, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT + CM‐adh, (3) Assessed control

Days used in prior 90 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 72.5 ± 28.0, N = 73, (2) 71.8 ± 27.8, N = 71, (3) 68.4 ± 31.5, N = 71

(1) Unclear, N = 60 [82.2%], (2) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%], (3) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [significant at FU months 5‐8 only]; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Madigan 2013, (1) MET + CBT, (2) TAU

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 10.0 ± 3.6, N = 59, (2) 10.1 ± 3.7, N = 29

(1) 9.8 ± 3.9, N = 32 [54.2%], (2) 10.1 ± 4.0, N = 19 [65.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Percent of days used in prior 90 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 87.56 ± 17.24, N = 156, (2) 86.92 ± 17.15, N = 146, (3) 89.88 ± 14.11, N = 148

(1) 44.86 ± 40.52, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) 53.65 ± 38.57, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) 75.59 ± 30.69, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [Cohen d = 0.22]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [Cohen d = 1.14]; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [Cohen d = 0.59]

Roffman 1988, (1) RP, (2) SS

Days used in prior ‘month’ (mean ± SD)

(1) 27.13 ± 4.6, N = 54, (2) 26.36 ± 5.79, N = 56

(1) 8.18 ± 10.48, N = 45 [83.3%], (2) 12.96 ± 11.56, N = 52 [92.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05

Stein 2011, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Proportion of days used in prior 90 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.59 ± 0.34, N = 163, (2) 0.55 ± 0.34, N = 169

(1) Unclear, N = 126 [77.3%], (2) Unclear, N = 136 [80.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.01 [significant at 3 month FU only]

Stephens 1994, (1) RP, (2) SS

Days used in prior 30 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 27.04 ± 4.66, N = 106, (2) 26.36 ± 5.81, N = 106

(1) 15.31 ± 12.49, N = 80 [75.5%], (2) 13.79 ± 11.9, N = 87 [82.1%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 2000, (1) MET, (2) CBT, (3) Assessed control

Days used in prior 90 days divided by 3 (mean ± SD)

(1) 24.24 ± 6.29, N = 88, (2) 25.38 ± 6.15, N = 117. (3) 24.85 ± 6.13, N = 86

(1) 12.99 ± 11.61, N = 80 [90.9%], (2) 12.29 ± 12.34, N = 103 [88.0%], (3) 17.09 ± 10.73, N = 79 [91.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.02 [significant at EoT only, assessed during treatment for (2)]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.001; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.001 [significant at EoT only]

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Days used in prior 90 days converted to average days per week (mean ± SE)

(1) 5.76 ± 0.15, N = 62. (2) 5.79 ± 0.15, N = 62, (3) 6.06 ± 0.15, N = 64

(1) 4.65 ± 0.28, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) 5.58 ± 0.28, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) 5.75 ± 0.24, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value <0.05 [Cohen d = 0.45]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [significant at 1.75 month FU, Cohen d = 0.47]; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated by *, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

MM: Mindfulness‐based meditation

RP: Relapse prevention

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

SS: Social support

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis use frequency
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 3. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis use quantity

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Bonsack 2011, (1) MET, (2) TAU

Joints per week (median ± range at baseline, median reduction at follow‐up)

(1) 22.5 ± 89, N = 30, (2) 19.0 ± 95, N = 32

(1) 10.0, N = 25 [83.3%], (2) 3.5, N = 29 [90.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05 [significant at 3 and 6 months only, d = 0.65]

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Joints per day (mean ± SD)

(1) 4.2 ± 3.0, N = 30, (2) 3.7 ± 2.2, N = 30, (3) 3.8 ± 2.2, N = 30

(1) Unclear, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) Unclear, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT [6‐session], (2) CBT [1‐session], (3) DTC

“daily amount used in the last month” (mean ± SD)

(1) 2.1 ± 0.8, N = 78, (2) 2.0 ± 0.8, N = 82, (3) 2.2 ± 0.9, N = 69

(1) 1.3 ± 0.9, N = 58 [74.4%], (2) 1.5 ± 1.2, N = 61 [74.4%], (3) 1.8 ± 1.0, N = 52 [75.4%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.02; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Fischer 2012, (1) DC [oral], (2) DC [workbook], (3) Health promotion [oral], (4) Health promotion [workbook]

Number of cannabis use episodes per day (mean ± range; reported only as combined group scores)

(1) + (2) 2.3 ± 1.2, N = 71, (3) + (4) 2.0 ± 0.6, N = 62

(1) + (2) 2.6 ± 2.1, N = unclear, (3) + (4) 2.2 ± 0.9

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Units in previous 7 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 25.2 ± 39.7, N = 90, (2) 21.3 ± 32.7, N = 32

(1) 8.1 ± 18.1, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 24.9 ± 33.4, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Units in previous 7 days (mean ± SD)

(1) 20.8 ± 26.7, N = 90, (2) 21.3 ± 28.3, N = 32

(1) 5.2 ± 13.0, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 20.6 ± 30.0, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.001 [d = ‐0.9]

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT [3 months], (2) MET + CBT [1 month], (3) DTC

Joints per day (mean ± SE)

(1) 2.08 ± 0.29, N = 52, (2) 2.06 ± 0.28, N = 56, (3) 1.84 ± 0.29, N = 52

(1) 0.77 ± 0.18, N = 27 [51.9%], (2) 0.78 ± 0.17, N = 37 [66.1%], (3) 1.56 ± 0.18, N = 35 [67.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.006; (2) vs (3) P value = 0.006

Kadden 2007, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Joints per day (mean ± SE)

(1) 4.76 ± 3.98, N = 63, (2) 4.67 ± 6.27, N = 61, (3) 3.24 ± 2.65, N = 54, (4) 5.20 ± 5.70, N = 62

(1) Unclear, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Lee 2013, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Joints per week (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.35 ± 9.8, N = 106, (2) 8.29 ± 9.5, N = 106

(1) 7.26 ± 8.4, N = 89 [84.0%], (2) 7.47 ± 10.7, N = 86 [81.1%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05 [P value < 0.05 at 3 month FU only]

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Joints per day (mean ± SD)

(1) 2.79 ± 2.35, N = 156, (2) 3.02 ± 2.80, N = 146, (3) 2.77 ± 2.19, N = 148

(1) Unclear, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) Unclear, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) 2.03 ± 1.94, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [d = 0.43]; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [d = 0.29]

Roffman 1988, (1) RP, (2) SS

Joints per day (mean ± SD)

(1) 2.58 ± 0.94, N = 54, (2) 2.85 ± 0.83, N = 56

(1) 1.11 ± 1.11, N = 45 [83.3%], (2) 1.29 ± 1.00, N = 52 [92.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 2000, (1) MET, (2) CBT, (3) Assessed control

Scale of quantity where 1 = once, 2 = 2‐3 times, 3 = 4‐5 times and 4 = 6+ times per day (mean ± SD)

(1) 2.41 ± 0.85, N = 88, (2) 2.59 ± 0.89, N = 117, (3) 2.61 ± 0.93, N = 86

(1) 1.41 ± 1.20, N = 80 [90.9%], (2) 1.39 ± 1.15, N = 103 [88.0%], (3) 1.97 ± 1.09, N = 79 [91.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.001; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.001 [significant at EoT only]

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Number of 6‐hour periods per day that were smoked (mean ± SE)

(1) 2.07 ± 0.10, N = 62, (2) 2.00 ± 0.10, N = 62, (3) 2.19 ± 0.09, N = 64

(1) 4.65 ± 0.28, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) 5.58 ± 0.28, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) 5.75 ± 0.24, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [significant at 1.75 month FU only, d = 0.42]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [significant at 1.75 month FU only, d = 0.69]; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated by *, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

RP: Relapse prevention

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

SS: Social support

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis use quantity
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 4. Summary of treatment outcomes: dependence severity

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MI

Addiction Severity Index composite scores (lowest score mean ± SD – highest score mean ± SD)

(1) 0.09 ± 0.01 ‐ 0.33 ± .03, N = 20, (2) 0.08 ± 0.05 ‐ 0.39 ± .02, N = 20, (3) 0.07 ± 0.01 & 0.42 ± .02, N = 20

(1) 0.01 ± 0.02 ‐ 0.32 ± .04, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 0.05 ± 0.04 ‐ 0.32 ± .03, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 0.01 ± 0.05 ‐ 0.32 ± .04, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2) and (1) vs (3) data provided in aggregate:

P value < 0.05 for the ‘medical’ [f = 0.16] and for the ‘drug’ [f = 0.23] composite scores; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Proportion with no symptoms of dependence in prior ‘month’ (%), Addiction Severity Index composite scores (data not shown)

(1) Unclear, Unclear, N = 30, (2) Unclear, Unclear, N = 30, (3) Unclear, Unclear, N = 30

(1) 37, Unclear, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) 30, Unclear, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) 27, Unclear, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.05 at 3 month FU only, P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Carroll 2006, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (2) DC + CM‐abs, + CM‐adh, (3) MET + CBT, (4) DC

Addiction Severity Index composite scores (data not shown)

(1) Unclear, N = 33, (2) Unclear, N = 34, (3) Unclear, N = 36, (4) Unclear, N = 33

(1) Unclear, N = 27 [81.8%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [70.6%], (3) Unclear, N = 27 [75.0%], (4) Unclear, N = 30 [90.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value = 0.05 for the ‘legal’ composite score across FU;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT [6‐session], (2) CBT [1‐session], (3) DTC

Severity of Dependence Scale score (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.2 ± 3.2, N = 78, (2) 9.8 ± 2.9, N = 82, (3) 9.3 ± 2.6, N = 69

(1) 5.8 ± 4.3, N = 58 [74.4%], (2) 7.6 ± 4.4, N = 61 [74.4%], (3) 9.2 ± 3.2, N = 52 [75.4%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.04 [t = ‐2.1]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.0001 [t = ‐4.7]; (2) vs (3) P value = 0.008 [t = ‐2.7]

Edwards 2006, (1) DC, (2) TAU

Cannabis and Substance Use Assessment Schedule (mean ± SD)

(1) 2.6 ± 0.9, N = 23, (2) 2.4 ± 1.2, N = 24

(1) 1.4 ± 1.4, N = 16 [69.6%], (2) 1.3 ± 1.5, N = 17 [70.8%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Addiction Severity Index composite scores (lowest score mean ± SD – highest score mean ± SD)

(1) 9.9 ± 1.4 – 10.1 ± 1.7, N = 90, (2) 9.7 ± 1.8 – 10.1 ± 2.1, N = 32

(1) 3.0 ± 4.0 – 11.0 ± 9.7, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 4.1 ± 10.7 – 13.7 ± 13.3, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [for drug, legal, medical, employment and family composite scores]

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Severity of Dependence Scale score, number of symptoms of dependence (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.0 ± 3.4, 3.3 ± 1.6, N = 166, (2) 9.1 ± 3.5, 3.1 ± 1.6, N = 130

(1) 4.7 ± 4.2, 0.9 ± 1.6, N = 166 [100%], (2) 7.0 ± 4.1, 2.4 ± 2.1, N = 106 [81.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.001 [d = ‐0.6], P value < 0.001 [d = ‐0.9]

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT [3 months], (2) MET + CBT [1 month], (3) DTC

Number of symptoms of dependence, overall Addiction Severity Index score (mean ± SE)

(1) 5.78 ± 0.31, 3.02 ± 0.21, N = 52, (2) 5.59 ± 0.30, 2.87 ± 0.20, N = 56, (3) 5.71 ± 0.31, 3.38 ± 0.21, N = 52

(1) 4.20 ± 0.33, 2.10 ± 0.21, N = 27 [51.9%], (2) 4.86 ± 0.32, 2.77 ± 0.20, N = 37 [66.1%], (3) 5.10 ± 0.33, 2.81 ± 0.21, N = 35 [67.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value = 0.0349, P value = 0.0121; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.0349, P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Kadden 2007, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Addiction Severity Index composite scores (lowest score mean ± SD – highest score mean ± SD)

(1) 0.09 ± 0.09 – 0.25 ± 0.19, N = 63. (2) 0.12 ± 0.12 – 0.25 ± 0.07, N = 61, (3) 0.09 ± 0.10 – 0.26 ± 0.05, N = 54, (4) 0.11 ± 0.14 – 0.25 ± 0.21, N = 62

(1) Unclear, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Number of symptoms of dependence (mean ± SD), Addiction Severity Index composite scores (lowest score mean ± SD – highest score mean ± SD)

(1) 5.62 ± 1.17, 0.11 ± 0.13 – 0.26 ± 0.30, N = 156, (2) 5.70 ± 1.20, 0.12 ± 0.13 – 0.28 ± 0.31, N = 146, (3) 5.56 ± 1.33, 0.11 ± 0.12 – 0.16 ± 0.25, N = 148

(1) 2.81 ± 2.40, 0.10 ± 0.11 – 0.25 ± 0.32, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) 3.63 ± 2.08, 0.13 ± 0.10 – 0.26 ± 0.32, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) 4.36 ± 1.92, 0.11 ± 0.12 – 0.20 ± 0.17, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [at 9 month FU only, d = 0.31], P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [for ‘employment’ composite only]; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [for ‘employment’ composite only]

Stephens 2000, (1) MET, (2) CBT, (3) Assessed control

Number of symptoms of dependence (mean ± SD)

(1) Unclear, N = 88, (2) Unclear, N = 117, (3) Unclear, N = 86 [6.74 ± 1.97 for total sample with no significant group differences]

(1) 2.75 ± 3.18, N = 80 [90.9%], (2) 2.83 ± 3.27, N = 103 [88.0%], (3) 4.63 ± 2.59, N = 79 [91.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.001; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.001 [significant at EoT only]

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Number of symptoms of dependence (mean ± SD)

(1) 3.92 ± 1.78, N = 62, (2) 3.26 ± 1.93, N = 62, (3) 3.17 ± 1.93, N = 64

(1) 2.43 ± .018, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) 2.88 ± 0.18, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) 2.85 ± 0.20, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05 [d = 0.48, 0.45 and 0.37 across FU]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [significant at 1.75 month FU, d = 0.58]; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated by *, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided.

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Summary of treatment outcomes: dependence severity
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 5. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis‐related problems

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Bernstein 2009, (1) Brief MET + CBT, (2) Assessed control

Percent reporting risky behaviours following use: fighting, driving, being careful (%)

(1) 50.0, 14.6, 78.1, N = 55, (2) 51.6, 14.8, 69.1, N = 64

(1) 12.8, 17.0, 73.9, N = 47 [69.1%], (2) 34.6, 24.5, 70.4, N = 55 [77.5%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MET

Modified Drug Abuse Screening Test “Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire” (mean ± SE)

(1) 7.7 ± 0.62, N = 20, (2) 7.1 ± 0.60, N = 20, (3) 6.7 ± 0.60, N = 20

(1) 3.7 ± 0.86, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 1.9 ± 0.78, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 1.5 ± 1.0, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SD)

(1) 7.8 ± 4.8, N = 30, (2) 7.9 ± 4.0, N = 30, (3) 7.8 ± 4.4, N = 30

(1) Unclear, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) Unclear, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT [6‐session], (2) CBT [1‐session], (3) DTC

Cannabis Problems Questionnaire (mean ± SD)

(1) 42.4 ± 17.1, N = 78, (2) 42.2 ± 18.6, N = 82, (3) 45.4 ± 16.3, N = 69

(1) 23.0 ± 16.8, N = 58 [74.4%], (2) 28.4 ± 18.6, N = 61 [74.4%], (3) 39.1 ± 16.6, N = 52 [75.4%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value = 0.004; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.0001

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Cannabis Problems Questionnaire, Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (mean ± SD)

(1) 6.7 ± 4.2, 41.8 ± 11.7, N = 166, (2) 6.8 ± 4.3, 43.3 ± 11.3, N = 130

(1) 27.1 ± 14.1, 2.9 ± 3.8, N = 166 [100%], (2) 37.1 ± 14.7, 5.6 ± 4.4, N = 106 [81.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.001 [d = ‐0.7], P value < 0.001 [d = ‐0.7]

Fischer 2012, (1) DC [oral], (2) DC [workbook], (3) Health promotion [oral], (4) Health promotion [workbook]

Proportion reporting driving a car while under the influence of cannabis, and deep inhalation smoking (%)

(1) 80.0, 40.0, N = 24, (2) 76.60, 46.81, N = 47, (3) 76.0, 29.17, N = 25, (4) 83.78, 27.59, N = 37

(1) Unclear, N = Unclear, (2) Unclear, N = Unclear, (3) Unclear, N = Unclear, (4) Unclear, N = Unclear [data reported by combining groups (1) + (2) and (3) + (4)]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05 [combining (1) + (2) vs (3) + (4) was P value < 0.05, Q = 13.1, P value < 0.05, Q = 9.3]

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT [3 months], (2) MET + CBT [1 month], (3) DTC

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SE)

(1) 10.21 ± 0.58, N = 52, (2) 9.80 ± 0.56, N = 56, (3) 9.71 ± 0.58, N = 52

(1) 8.52 ± 0.63, N = 27 [51.9%], (2) 9.54 ± 0.61, N = 37 [66.1%], (3) 8.92 ± 0.64, N = 35 [67.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Kadden 2007 (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SD)

(1) 13.42 ± 6.84, N = 63, (2) 13.97 ± 7.52, N = 61, (3) 12.62 ± 6.09, N = 54, (4) 15.19 ± 6.74, N = 62

(1) Unclear, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Lee 2013, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Adapted Marijuana Problems Index (mean ± SD)

(1) 10.45 ± 4.9, N = 106, (2) 10.38 ± 5.9, N = 106

(1) 6.54 ± 5.3, N = 89 [84.0%], (2) 6.75 ± 6.5, N = 86 [81.1%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05, [significant at 3 month FU only]

Litt 2013, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT + CM‐adh, (3) Assessed control

Marijuana Problem Scale (data presented in an unclear figure)

(1) Unclear, N = 73, (2) Unclear, N = 71, (3) Unclear, N = 71

(1) Unclear, N = 60 [82.2%], (2) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%], (3) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.47 ± 3.51, N = 156, (2) 10.18 ± 3.47, N = 146, (3) 9.07 ± 3.53, N = 148

(1) Unclear, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) Unclear, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) Unclear, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, [significant at 4 month FU only, d = 0.41]; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.05 [d = 0.53]; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Roffman 1988, (1) RP, (2) SS

Modified Drug Abuse Screening Test – Marijuana Problem Scale (data provided as total sample only)

(1) Unclear, N = 54, (2) Unclear, N = 56

(1) Unclear, N = 45 [83.3%], (2) Unclear, N = 52 [92.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value < 0.05

Stein 2011, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SD)

(1) 4.82 ± 4.66, N = 163, (2) 4.99 ± 4.71, N = 169

(1) Unclear, N = 126 [77.3%], (2) Unclear, N = 136 [80.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 1994, (1) RP, (2) SS

Drug Abuse Screening Test (mean ± SD)

(1) 8.88 ± 2.86, N = 106, (2) 6.31 ± 4.28, N = 106

(1) 3.27 ± 3.41, N = 80 [75.5%], (2) 2.91 ± 3.64, N = 87 [82.1%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 2000, (1) MET, (2) CBT, (3) Assessed control

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SD)

(1) 9.99 ± 2.89, N = 88, (2) 9.86 ± 3.05, N = 117, (3) 9.78 ± 2.96, N = 86

(1) 12.99 ± 11.61, N = 80 [90.9%], (2) 12.29 ± 12.34, N = 103 [88.0%], (3) 7.89 ± 4.23, N = 79 [91.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value < 0.001; (2) vs (3) P value < 0.001 [significant at EoT only]

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Marijuana Problem Scale (mean ± SE)

(1) 6.37 ± 3.71, N = 62, (2) 5.31 ± 3.53, N = 62, (3) 6.31 ± 4.28, N = 64

(1) 3.95 ± 0.40, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) 5.21 ± 0.40, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) 5.01 ± 0.40, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated by *, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency Management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

RP: Relapse prevention

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

SS: Social support

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Summary of treatment outcomes: cannabis‐related problems
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 6. Summary of treatment outcomes: treatment retention

Study

Intended number of sessions

Intended treatment duration, weeks

Treatment adherence, %

Completed sessions, mean ± SD

CBT

Copeland 2001

1

n/a

87.8% attended

n/a

Copeland 2001

6

6

91% attended ≥ 1; 50% completed

4.2 ± 2.2

Carroll 2012

12

12

53.1% completed treatment

5.9 ± 3.8*

Stephens 2000

14

14

50% attended 10 or more sessions including sessions 9 and 10

8.42 ± 3.51

CBT + CM‐abs

Budney 2006

14

14

87% provided 3 or more urine specimens

9.6 ± 4.9

Carroll 2012

12

12

47.2% completed treatment

5.9 ± 3.8*

CBT + CM‐adh

Budney 2006

14

14

87% provided 3 or more urine specimens

8.8 ± 5.0

Carroll 2012

12

12

59.4% completed treatment

5.9 ± 3.8*

MET

Budney 2000

4

14

45% completed ≥ 1 session and provided ≥ 1 urine specimen during the final 2 weeks of treatment

‐

Stein 2011

2

4

80.4% completed treatment

1.7 ± 0.6

MTPRG 2004

2

6

71.9% completed treatment

1.6

Stephens 2007

1

7

88.7% completed treatment

‐

MET + CBT

MTPRG 2004

9

12

47% completed treatment

6.5

Bernstein 2009

2

56

100% completed ≥ 1 session

‐

Jungerman 2007

4

4

85.7% completed treatment

‐

Jungerman 2007

4

12

67.3% completed treatment

‐

Kadden 2007

9

9

‐

4.9 ± 3.3

Carroll 2006

8

8

66.7% completed treatment

‐

Hoch 2012

10

5‐8

87.8% completed treatment

7

Hoch 2014

10

8‐12

65.1% completed treatment

Madigan 2013

13

18

54.2% “declined the intervention”

‐

Budney 2000

14

14

65% completed ≥ 1 session

MET + CBT + CM‐abs

Budney 2000

14

14

55% completed ≥ 1 session

‐

Litt 2013

9

9

‐

5.5 ± 3.8

Kadden 2007

9

9

‐

5.6 ± 3.6

MET + CBT + CM‐adh

Litt 2013

9

9

‐

5.7 ± 3.5

MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

Carroll 2006

8

8

69.7% completed treatment

5.1 ± 2.5

DC

Carroll 2006

8

8

39.4% completed treatment

‐

Edwards 2006

10

12

‐

7.6 ± 2.8

Drug‐related health education

Stephens 2007

1

7

93.5% completed treatment

‐

DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

Carroll 2006

8

8

63.7% completed treatment

‐

MM

de Dios 2012

2

2

72.7% completed treatment

RP

Roffman 1988

10

12

87.8% received ≥ 4 sessions

7.54*

Stephens 1994

14

18

69% attended 7 or more sessions*

7.6 ± 2.5*

SS

Roffman 1988

10

12

73.2% received ≥ 4 sessions

7.54*

Stephens 1994

14

18

69% attended 7 or more sessions*

7.6 ± 2.5*

CM‐abs

Budney 2006

12

12

83% provided 3 or more urine specimens

‐

Carroll 2012

12

12

59.3% completed treatment

‐

Kadden 2007

9

9

‐

5.5 ± 3.8

* These data were reported as a total sample only, although no between‐group differences were noted across interventions

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

MM: Mindfulness meditation

RP: Relapse prevention

SS: Social support
Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Summary of treatment outcomes: treatment retention
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 7. Summary of treatment outcomes: motivation to quit

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Bonsack 2011, (1) MET, (2) TAU

The Contemplation Ladder; a scale score from 0‐100 of readiness, importance and confidence to change (median)

(1) 50.0, 50.0, 50.0, N = 30, (2) 50.0, 25.0, 50.0, N = 32

(1) 56.25, 50.0, 75.0, N = 25 [83.3%], (2) 50.0, 50.0, 60.0, N = 29 [90.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05, P value = 0.02 on the ‘confidence’ score at 3 month FU only, d = 0.64

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MET

Adapted University of Rhode Island Change Assessment score, Situational Confidence Questionnaire (overall score least squares mean ± SE)

(1) 9.1 ± 0.36, 55.4 ± 3.9, N = 20, (2) 9.6 ± 3.5, 50.7 ± 3.9, N = 20, (3) 9.4 ± 0.34, 55.1 ± 4.3, N = 20

(1) 8.5 ± 0.56, 68.4 ± 6.4, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 8.6 ± 0.45, 79.0 ± 5.4, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 6.6 ± 0.64, 58.3 ± 7.4, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2)* P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [favours group 2]; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05 (2) vs (3)* P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [favours group 2]

Edwards 2006, (1) DC, (2) TAU

Readiness to Change Questionnaire‐Cannabis (% in ‘action’ stage)

(1) 25.0, N = 23, (2) 29.5, N = 24

(1) 27.3, N = 16 [69.6%], (2) 38.6, N = 17 [70.8%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Litt 2013, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT + CM‐adh, (3) Assessed control

Marijuana Self‐Efficacy Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Scale, Readiness to Change Questionnaire (data provided in unclear figure)

(1) Unclear, N = 73, (2) Unclear, N = 71, (3) Unclear, N = 71

(1) Unclear, N = 60 [82.2%], (2) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%], (3) Unclear, N = 61 [85.9%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) all P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) all P value > 0.05

Stein 2011, (1) MET, (2) Assessed control

Percent with a desire to abstain (%)

(1) 56.8, N = 163, (2) 63.5, N = 169

(1) 77.3, N = 126 [77.3%], (2) 80.5, N = 136 [80.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Readiness to Change Questionnaire (% in pre‐contemplation or contemplation stage)

(1) 68, N = 62, (2) 87, N = 62, (3) 70, N = 64

(1) Unclear, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) Unclear, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

RP: Relapse prevention

SE: Standard error

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Summary of treatment outcomes: motivation to quit
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 8. Summary of treatment outcomes: other drug use

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MET

Addiction Severity Index ‘alcohol’ and ‘drug use’ composite scores (least squares mean ± SE)

(1) 0.9 ± 0.01, 0.22 ± 0.01, N = 20, (2) 0.12 ± 0.01, 0.20 ± 0.01, N = 20, (3) 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.21 ± 0.01, N = 20

(1) 0.11 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.02, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 0.11 ± 0.02, 0.07 ± 0.02, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 0.08 ± 0.02, 0.11 ± 0.02, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [f = 0.23];

(1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 [f = 0.23];

(2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Addiction Severity Index ‘alcohol’ and ‘drug use’ composite scores (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.09 ± 0.10, 0.23 ± 0.09, N = 30, (2) 0.10 ± 0.13, 0.25 ± 0.09, N = 30, (3) 0.11 ± 0.11, 0.24 ± 0.08, N = 30

(1) Unclear, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) Unclear, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Carroll 2006, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (2) DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (3) MET + CBT, (4) DC

Addiction Severity Index for alcohol and drug use (data not provided)

(1) Unclear, N = 33, (2) Unclear, N = 34, (3) Unclear, N = 36, (4) Unclear, N = 33

(1) Unclear, N = 27 [81.8%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [70.6%], (3) Unclear, N = 27 [75.0%], (4) Unclear, N = 30 [90.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Addiction Severity Index ‘alcohol’ and ‘drug use’ composite scores (mean ± SD)

(1) 10.0 ± 1.0, 10.0 ± 0.7, N = 90, (2) 9.9 ± 0.8, 10.0 ± 0.7, N = 32

(1) 11.0 ± 9.7, 3.0 ± 4.0, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 13.7 ± 13.3, 8.3 ± 3.5, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Hoch 2014, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Litres per consumption day of alcohol (mean ± SD), proportion of daily smokers (%), proportion using any illicit drug (%)

(1) 0.2 ± 0.3, 78.2, 10.6, N = 166, (2) 0.2 ± 0.3, 82.0, 7.1, N = 130

(1) 0.2 ± 0.4, 78.5, 13.0, N = 166 [100%], (2) 0.2 ± 0.02, 82.1, 8.6, N = 106 [81.5%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Jungerman 2007, (1) MET + CBT [3 months], (2) MET + CBT [1 month], (3) DTC

Percent of days post baseline used alcohol (mean ± SE), Addiction Severity Index drug use composite score (mean ± SE)

(1) 10.03 ± 2.20, 3.02 ± 0.21, N = 52, (2) 11.16 ± 2.12, 2.87 ± 0.20, N = 56, (3) 10.06 ± 2.20, 3.38 ± 0.21, N = 52

(1) 7.09 ± 2.07, 2.10 ± 0.21 N = 27 [51.9%], (2) 9.13 ± 1.99, 2.77 ± 0.20, N = 37 [66.1%], (3) 9.01 ± 2.07, 2.81 ± 0.21, N = 35 [67.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value = 0.0121; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Kadden 2007 (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Addiction Severity Index ‘alcohol’ and ‘drug use’ composite scores (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.09 ± 0.10, 0.26 ± 0.05, N = 63, (2) 0.12 ± 0.12, 0.25 ± 0.07, N = 61, (3) 0.11 ± 0.14, 0.23 ± 0.07, N = 54, (4) 0.09 ± 0.09, 0.23 ± 0.07, N = 62

(1) Unclear, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Days alcohol used in prior 90 days (mean ± SD), Addiction Severity Index for alcohol (mean ± SD)

(1) 48.79 ± 79.10, 0.11 ± 0.13, N = 156, (2) 59.41 ± 84.56, 0.12 ± 0.13, N = 146, (3) 46.57 ± 85.48, 0.11 ± 0.12, N = 148

(1) 46.12 ± 106.70, 0.10 ± 0.11, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) 45.56 ± 76.62, 0.12 ± 0.13, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) 42.92 ± 62.48, 0.11 ± 0.12, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Roffman 1988, (1) RP, (2) SS

Occasions of use in prior week for alcohol and tobacco, proportion reporting any illicit drug use (data provided for total sample only)

(1) Unclear, N = 54, (2) Unclear, N = 56

(1) Unclear, N = 45 [83.3%], (2) Unclear, N = 52 [92.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05

Stephens 1994, (1) RP, (2) SS

Average occasions of use in a typical week for alcohol and illicit drugs in the prior 90 days, number of alcohol‐related and drug‐related problem scores from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (data provided for total sample only)

(1) Unclear, N = 106, (2) Unclear, N = 106

(1) Unclear, N = 80 [75.5%], (2) Unclear, N = 87 [82.1%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05

Stephens 2000, (1) MET, (2) CBT, (3) Assessed control

Frequency of alcohol and other drug use in the prior 90 days, number of alcohol and drug‐related problems from unclear 19‐item assessment (mean)

(1) Unclear, N = 88, (2) Unclear, N = 117, (3) Unclear, N = 86 [data reported as total sample only]

(1) 0.48, N = 80 [90.9%], (2) 0.76, N = 103 [88.0%], (3) 5.01, N = 79 [91.9%] [data reported as total sample only, with the exception of other drug use frequency]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) all P value > 0.05, except other drug use frequency P value < 0.05; (2) vs (3) all P value > 0.05, except other drug use frequency P value < 0.05 [significant at EoT only]

Stephens 2007, (1) MET, (2) Drug‐related health education, (3) DTC

Days used in prior week for alcohol and illicit drugs and number of alcohol and drug‐related problems from unclear assessment (mean ± SD when provided)

(1) 2.00 ± 2.08, 0.16 ± 0.43, Unclear, N = 62, (2) 1.38 ± 1.63, 0.13 ± 0.23, Unclear, N = 62, (3) 1.90 ± 2.12, 0.11 ± 0.19, Unclear, N = 64

(1) Unclear, N = 49 [79.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%], (3) Unclear, N = 62 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) all P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) all P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated by *, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

RP: Relapse prevention

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

SS: Social support

TAU: Treatment as usual
Figuras y tablas -
Table 8. Summary of treatment outcomes: other drug use
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 9. Summary of treatment outcomes: mental health

Study and group

Measure

Baseline

Follow‐up

[% with data]

Significance*

Bonsack 2011, (1) MET, (2) TAU

PANSS‐P, PANSS‐N, GAF, SOFAS, Proportion admitted to hospital during trial period (median ± range)

(1) 17.0 ± 19.0, 18.0 ± 18, 40.0 ± 20.0, 40.0 ± 19.0, n/a, N = 30, (2) 17.0 ± 21.0, 17.5 ± 13, 40.0 ± 40.0, 40.0 ± 40.0, n/a, N = 32

(1) 16.0 ± 22, 17.0 ± 16.0, 40 ± 24, 40.5 ± 24, 30.0, N = 25 [83.3%], (2) 16.0 ± 20.0, 17.5 ± 17.0, 40.0 ± 40.0, 41.0 ± 30.0, 34.4, N = 29 [90.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

Budney 2000, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) MET

Global Symptom Index of the Brief Symptom Inventory (least squares, mean ± SE)

(1) 68.1 ± 1.8, N = 20, (2) 65.6 ± 1.8, N = 20, (3) 67.9 ± 1.9, N = 20

(1) 58.9 ± 2.9, N = 14 [70.0%], (2) 55.4 ± 2.3, N = 15 [75.0%], (3) 58.7 ± 3.4, N = 16 [80.0%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Budney 2006, (1) CBT + CM‐abs, (2) CBT + CM‐adh, (3) CM‐abs

Global Symptom Index of the Brief Symptom Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory (least squares, mean ± SD)

(1) 1.0 ± 0.79, 14.2 ± 11.7, N = 30, (2) 1.1 ± 0.93, 15.6 ± 12.0, N = 30, (3) 1.1 ± 0.79, 15.0 ± 12.1, N = 30

(1) Unclear, Unclear, N = 21 [70.0%], (2) Unclear, Unclear, N = 24 [80.0%], (3) Unclear, Unclear, N = 22 [73.3%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Carroll 2006, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, + CM‐adh, (2) DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh, (3) MET + CBT, (4) DC

Addiction Severity Index composite scores (data not shown)

(1) Unclear, N = 33, (2) Unclear, N = 34, (3) Unclear, N = 36, (4) Unclear, N = 33

(1) Unclear, N = 27 [81.8%], (2) Unclear, N = 24 [70.6%], (3) Unclear, N = 27 [75.0%], (4) Unclear, N = 30 [90.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value = 0.05 [for the ‘legal’ score across FU];

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Copeland 2001, (1) CBT [6‐session], (2) CBT [1‐session], (3) DTC

Symptom Checklist‐90 Global Severity Index (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.7 ± 0.3, N = 78, (2) 0.7 ± 0.4, N = 82, (3) 0.7 ± 0.3, N = 69

(1) 0.6 ± 0.3, N = 58 [74.4%], (2) 0.5 ± 0.4, N = 61 [74.4%], (3) 0.6 ± 0.4, N = 52 [75.4%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05

Edwards 2006, (1) DC, (2) TAU

BPRS‐E, BPRS‐PS, SANS, BDI‐SF, SOFAS, KAPQ (mean ± SD)

(1) 49.9 ± 16.3, 10.3 ± 5.4, 28 ± 16, 10.4 ± 6.6, 48.7 ± 17.2, 21.2 ± 3.9, N = 23, (2) 48.8 ±1 7, 10.8 ± 5.2, 24.7 ± 13.6, 8.8 ± 8.1, 49.8 ± 14.8, 20.3 ± 5.4, N = 24

(1) 45.6 ± 13.5, 9.4 ± 4.6, 23.7 ± 17.2, 7.5 ± 6.3, 51.7 ± 18.3, 22.4 ± 4.0, N = 16 [69.6%], (2) 44.8 ± 15.4, 8.8 ± 4.8, 19.4 ± 13.5, 6.3 ± 7.2, 56.4 ± 15.9, 21.5 ± 4.1, N = 17 [70.8%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05

Hoch 2012, (1) MET + CBT, (2) DTC

Brief Symptom Inventory, disability days in the prior month using the M‐CIDI (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.9 ± 0.6, 9.4 ± 10.2, N = 90, (2) 0.9 ± 0.5, 6.6 ± 8.7, N = 32

(1) 0.4 ± 0.4, 3.2 ± 5.9, N = 79 [87.8%], (2) 0.7 ± 0.5, 6.5 ± 9.6, N = 31 [96.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05

Kadden 2007, (1) MET + CBT + CM‐abs, (2) MET + CBT, (3) CM‐abs, (4) Health education

Psychiatric composite score from the Addiction Severity Index (mean ± SD)

(1) 0.25 ± 0.19, N = 63, (2) 0.24 ± 0.20, N = 61, (3) 0.25 ± 0.21, N = 54, (4) 0.22 ± 0.23, N = 62

(1) Unclear, N = 51 [81.0%], (2) Unclear, N = 49 [80.3%], (3) Unclear, N = 48 [88.9%], (4) Unclear, N = 52 [83.9%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (1) vs (4) P value > 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05; (3) vs (4) P value > 0.05;

(2) vs (4) P value > 0.05

Madigan 2013, (1) MET + CBT, (2) TAU

Insight composite of the BIS, SAPS, SANS, CDSS, GAF, WHOQOL (mean ± SD)

(1) 6.8 ± 2.8, 5.4 ± 4.0, 7.7 ± 3.1, 5.1 ± 5.7, 38.3 ± 13.1, 12.5 ± 4.0, N = 59, (2) 6.3 ± 2.7, 5.7 ± 4.8, 7.4 ± 3.0, 5.0 ± 6.4, 38.0 ± 9.0, 13.3 ± 2.8, N = 29

(1) 7.0 ± 2.9, 4.9 ± 4.0, 4.6 ± 3.0, 4.3 ± 4.4, 37.6 ± 8.34, 12.6 ± 3.4, N = 32 [54.2%], (2) 6.6 ± 1.5, 5.1 ± 4.2, 4.8 ± 3.2, 4.3 ± 4.2, 37.2 ± 11.5, 11.1 ± 2.9, N = 19 [65.5%]

(1) vs (2) all P value > 0.05, except for the WHOQOL at P value = 0.05

MTPRG 2004, (1) MET + CBT, (2) MET, (3) Assessed control

Beck Depression Inventory, STAI‐S (mean ± SD)

(1) 11.39 ± 7.00, 39.87 ± 11.62, N = 156, (2) 13.21 ± 8.60, 41.61 ± 12.19, N = 146, (3) 10.09 ± 7.35, 37.29 ± 11.53, N = 148

(1) 7.34 ± 8.29, 33.61 ± 11.32, N = 129 [82.7%], (2) 10.16 ± 9.36, 38.85 ± 12.66, N = 120 [82.2%], (3) 7.87 ± 6.78, 35.50 ± 11.21, N = 137 [92.6%]

(1) vs (2) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05 at 4 month FU only; (1) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value < 0.05; (2) vs (3) P value > 0.05, P value > 0.05

* Unless otherwise indicated, significant treatment outcomes favour the group with the lower number; exact P values are reported when provided

BDI‐SF: Beck Depression Inventory‐Short Form

BIS: Birchwood Insight Scale

BPRS‐E: Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale‐Expanded

BPRS‐PS: Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale‐Positive Symptom subscale

CBT: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy

CDSS: Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia

CM‐abs: Contingency management with vouchers presented for negative urine

CM‐adh: Contingency management with vouchers presented for treatment attendance/adherence

DC: Drug counselling

DTC: Delayed treatment control

EoT: End of treatment

FU: Follow‐up

GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning scale

KAPQ: Knowledge About Psychosis Questionnaire

M‐CIDI: Munich‐Composite International Diagnostic Interview

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy

PANSS: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

SANS: Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms

SAPS: Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms

SD: Standard deviation

SE: Standard error

SOFAS: Social and Occupational Functioning Scale

TAU: Treatment as usual

WHOQOL: World Health Organization, Quality of Life assessment
Figuras y tablas -
Table 9. Summary of treatment outcomes: mental health
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Intervention versus inactive control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Reductions in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

6

1144

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.67 [3.08, 8.26]

2 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity) Show forest plot

6

1144

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.39 [4.01, 8.78]

2.1 Low‐intensity intervention

6

763

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.58 [2.65, 6.50]

2.2 High‐intensity intervention

3

381

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

10.02 [7.69, 12.34]

3 Reduction in cannabis use frequency at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type) Show forest plot

6

1144

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.34 [3.80, 8.88]

3.1 MET

4

612

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.45 [1.90, 7.00]

3.2 CBT

1

134

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

10.94 [7.44, 14.44]

3.3 MET + CBT

3

398

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.38 [3.18, 11.57]

4 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

6

1166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.55 [1.34, 4.83]

5 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity) Show forest plot

6

1166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.96 [1.20, 3.21]

5.1 Low‐intensity intervention

4

435

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.51, 1.66]

5.2 High‐intensity intervention

5

731

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.09 [2.23, 4.29]

6 Point‐prevalence abstinence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type) Show forest plot

6

1166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.24, 3.80]

6.1 MET

1

197

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.43, 3.28]

6.2 CBT

1

171

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

4.81 [1.17, 19.70]

6.3 MET + CBT

5

798

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.10, 4.32]

7 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

8

1600

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.55 [2.51, 4.59]

8 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity) Show forest plot

8

1600

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.71 [2.71, 4.71]

8.1 Low‐intensity intervention

6

752

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.70 [1.69, 3.70]

8.2 High‐intensity intervention

6

848

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.74 [3.49, 6.00]

9 Reduction in joints per day at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type) Show forest plot

8

1600

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.90 [2.82, 4.98]

9.1 MET

4

611

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.17 [2.67, 3.66]

9.2 CBT

2

306

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.40 [‐1.05, 7.84]

9.3 MET + CBT

4

683

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.88 [3.14, 6.62]

10 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

4

889

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.15 [1.67, 6.63]

11 Reduction in symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity) Show forest plot

4

889

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.56 [2.73, 8.39]

11.1 Low‐intensity intervention

3

370

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.83 [0.41, 5.24]

11.2 High‐intensity intervention

3

519

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.37 [2.51, 14.23]

12 Symptoms of dependence at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type) Show forest plot

4

889

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.32 [3.15, 9.50]

12.1 MET

2

316

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.07 [1.97, 6.17]

12.2 MET + CBT

3

573

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.89 [0.93, 14.85]

13 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

6

2202

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.34 [1.26, 5.42]

14 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention intensity) Show forest plot

6

2202

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.70 [1.91, 5.49]

14.1 Low‐intensity intervention

5

667

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.50 [1.01, 3.98]

14.2 High‐intensity intervention

4

1535

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.14 [2.57, 7.70]

15 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems at short‐term follow‐up (intervention type) Show forest plot

6

2202

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.11 [2.22, 6.01]

15.1 MET

4

612

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.29 [1.85, 4.72]

15.2 CBT

1

135

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.88 [6.86, 8.90]

15.3 MET + CBT

3

1455

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.85 [‐0.39, 8.10]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Intervention versus inactive control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Intervention versus treatment as usual control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency Show forest plot

2

97

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐2.00, 2.27]

2 Reduction in severity of cannabis use disorder Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.82, 1.02]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Intervention versus treatment as usual control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Intervention A versus Intervention B

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Reduction in cannabis use frequency Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 RP vs SS

1

97

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.55 [1.89, 9.21]

1.2 MET vs DC

1

112

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.99 [0.89, 7.08]

1.3 MET vs CBT

1

179

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.86 [‐3.86, 2.14]

1.4 MET vs MET + CBT

1

31

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.80 [‐9.94, 4.34]

1.5 MET vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs (EoT)

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.30 [‐13.68, ‐0.92]

1.6 MET vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs

1

266

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.96 [‐7.18, ‐2.74]

1.7 CBT + CM‐abs vs CM‐abs

1

43

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.9 [‐1.95, 11.75]

1.8 CBT + CM‐adh vs CM‐abs

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.70 [‐7.61, 6.21]

1.9 CBT + CM‐abs vs CBT + CM‐adh

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.60 [‐1.65, 12.85]

2 Point‐prevalence abstinence Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 MET vs MET + CBT

2

301

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.59 [1.80, 7.20]

2.2 MET + CBT vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

1

43

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.21, 2.50]

2.3 MET + CBT vs DC

1

156

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.44, 4.38]

2.4 DC vs DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

1

41

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.10, 1.81]

2.5 MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh vs DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

1

40

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.38, 5.07]

2.6 MET + CBT vs DC + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

1

39

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.26, 3.80]

2.7 MET vs CBT

1

170

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.47]

2.8 RP vs SS

1

167

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.54, 2.08]

2.9 MET + CBT (low intensity) vs MET + CBT (high intensity)

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.03, 4.04]

2.10 CBT + CM‐abs vs CBT + CM‐adh

1

45

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.52, 6.62]

2.11 CBT + CM‐abs vs CM‐abs

1

43

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.77 [0.69, 11.19]

2.12 CBT + CM‐adh vs CM‐abs

1

46

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.36, 6.23]

2.13 CBT (low intensity) vs CBT (high intensity)

1

119

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.30, 1.90]

3 Reduction in joints used per day Show forest plot

7

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 MET vs CBT

1

183

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.63 [‐1.97, ‐1.29]

3.2 MET vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs

1

266

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [‐0.02, 0.46]

3.3 MET vs DC

1

101

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.81 [1.35, 2.28]

3.4 CBT (low intensity) vs CBT (high intensity)

1

119

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.15 [‐3.69, ‐2.61]

3.5 RP vs SS

1

97

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.22 [‐1.66, ‐0.79]

3.6 MET + CBT (low intensity) vs MET + CBT (high intensity)

1

64

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.58, 0.41]

3.7 CBT + CM‐adh vs CBT + CM‐abs

1

52

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.45 [1.72, 3.18]

3.8 CBT + CM‐abs vs CM‐abs

1

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.59, 0.52]

3.9 CBT + CM‐adh vs CM‐abs

1

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.37 [1.63, 3.10]

4 Reduction in symptoms of dependence Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 MET vs Drug education control

1

101

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.32 [3.60, 5.04]

4.2 MET vs MET + CBT

1

266

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.78 [‐2.07, ‐1.50]

4.3 MET vs CBT

1

183

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.23, 0.36]

4.4 MET + CBT (high intensity) vs MET + CBT (low intensity)

1

64

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.96 [3.95, 5.98]

4.5 CBT (low intensity) vs CBT (high intensity)

1

119

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.66 [‐3.16, ‐2.16]

5 Reduction in cannabis‐related problems Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 MET vs MET + CBT

2

292

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.47, ‐0.22]

5.2 MET vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.22, 0.30]

5.3 RP vs SS

1

156

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.29, ‐0.21]

5.4 CBT (low intensity) vs CBT (high intensity)

1

119

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.46, ‐0.35]

6 Treatment completion Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 MET vs MET + CBT (high intensity)

1

302

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.54 [1.26, 1.87]

6.2 MET + CBT (low intensity) vs MET + CBT (high intensity)

1

108

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.02, 1.58]

6.3 CBT (low intensity) vs CBT (high intensity)

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.76 [1.39, 2.22]

6.4 MET + CBT vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.69, 1.32]

6.5 DC vs DC + CM‐adh + CM‐abs

1

67

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.37, 0.99]

6.6 MET + CBT vs DC

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.69 [1.04, 2.74]

6.7 MET + CBT vs DC + CM‐adh + CM‐abs

1

70

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.73, 1.45]

6.8 MET + CBT + CM‐abs + CM‐adh vs DC

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.77 [1.10, 2.86]

6.9 MET + CBT + CM‐adh + CM‐abs vs DC + CM‐adh + CM‐abs

1

67

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.77, 1.51]

6.10 CBT vs CBT + CM‐abs

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.70, 1.82]

6.11 CBT vs CBT + CM‐adh

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.58, 1.35]

6.12 CBT + CM‐abs vs CBT + CM‐adh

1

64

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.49, 1.26]

6.13 CBT vs CM‐abs

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.57, 1.38]

6.14 CBT + CM‐abs vs CM‐abs

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.49, 1.28]

6.15 CBT + CM‐adh vs CM‐abs

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.66, 1.53]

7 Improvement in motivation to quit Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 MET + CBT vs MET

1

31

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

25.1 [9.79, 40.41]

7.2 MET vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐9.8 [‐25.83, 6.23]

7.3 MET + CBT vs MET + CBT + CM‐abs

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

15.3 [‐0.56, 31.16]

8 Reduction in alcohol use severity (ASI score) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 MET vs MET + CBT

2

280

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.03]

8.2 MET + CBT + CM‐abs vs MET

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.8 [0.75, 0.85]

8.3 MET + CBT + CM‐abs vs MET + CBT

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.73, 0.83]

9 Reduction in drug use severity (ASI score) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 MET vs MET + CBT

1

31

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.08, 0.02]

9.2 MET + CBT + CM‐abs vs MET

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.06, 0.16]

9.3 MET + CBT + CM‐abs vs MET + CBT

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.03, 0.13]

9.4 MET + CBT (high intensity) vs MET + CBT (low intensity)

1

64

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.12, 1.52]

10 Reduction in frequency of alcohol use Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 MET vs MET + CBT

1

249

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

11.18 [‐13.43, 35.79]

10.2 MET + CBT (high intensity) vs MET + CBT (low intensity)

1

64

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [‐5.58, 7.21]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Intervention A versus Intervention B
Ir a la tabla de la revisión