Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of findings table

From: Efficacy and safety of psychostimulants for amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes No. of participants
Quality of the evidence
Relative effect
(95% CI)
Anticipated absolute effects
Risk with placebo Risk difference with psychostimulants
Abstinence from illicit amphetamines and methamphetamines (final 2 weeks of treatment)
Assessed with: urinalysis
(5 RCTs)

Very lowa,b,c,d,e
OR 0.97
(0.65 to 1.45)
215 per 1000 5 fewer per 1000
(64 fewer to 69 more)
Retention in treatment (end of trial)
Follow-up: range 8 to 24 weeks
(14 RCTs)

Very lowb,c,d,e,f
OR 1.20
(0.91 to 1.58)
480 per 1000 46 more per 1000
(23 fewer to 113 more)
  1. GRADE working group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  4. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. The risk in the intervention group (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)
  7. CI Confidence interval, OR Odds ratio
  8. aThe majority of studies had high attrition bias (>50% dropout rate) and small sample sizes
  9. b80% of studies did not mention allocation concealment, which may be a source of bias
  10. cHeterogeneity was not explained by subgroup analyses, as indicated by non-significant tests for subgroup differences
  11. dStudies investigating the efficacy of different psychostimulant drugs at varying doses were pooled
  12. e95% confidence intervals are wide and there is a varying range of effect, with little overlap of confidence intervals from some studies
  13. fPopulations varied across studies with certain studies including injection drug users, incarcerated individuals or participants with ADHD