Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Efficacy of outpatient aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: a randomized controlled study.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Evidence map
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Efficacy of outpatient aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: a randomized controlled study.
Author Kaminer Y., Burleson JA., Burke RH.
Country Alcohol Research Center, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-2103, USA. kaminer@psychiatry.uchc.edu
Year 2008
Numbers Pubmed ID: 18978635

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Twelve-month follow-up of aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders. Burleson JA., Kaminer Y., Burke RH. Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-6325, USA. 2012
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Suicidal ideation among adolescents with alcohol use disorders during treatment and aftercare. Kaminer Y., Burleson JA., Goldston DB., Burke RH. Alcohol Research Center, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-2103, USA. kaminer@psychiatry.uchc.edu 2006
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT_MI_b In-person MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 CBT_MI_a Brief telephone MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 CBT_MI Combination of MI arms
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4 TAU Psychoeducation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper originate from a primary study of interest? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 177
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other ... likelihood of relapse
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a CBT_MI TAU


3 months

Counts nr nr 21 8
Percentage nr nr 48.8 30.8
N Analyzed 22 28 50 30
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a CBT_MI TAU


3 months

Counts nr nr 21 4
Percentage nr nr 61.8 33.3
N Analyzed 22 28 50 30
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a CBT_MI TAU


3 months

Mean 1 0.7 0.8 1.5
SD 0.3, 3.5 0.6, 2.5 0.7, 2.9 1.2, 5.1
N Analyzed 22 28 50 30
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a CBT_MI TAU


3 months

Mean 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.3
SD 0.7, 3.1 0.5, 2.3 0.6, 2.5 1.1, 4.7
N Analyzed 22 28 50 30
Outcome: Psychiatric outcome      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a CBT_MI TAU


0 months

Mean 12.2 8.8 8.6
N Analyzed 38 43 41
95% CI low 9.9 8.2 7.9
95% CI high 15.6 12.3 11.8


3 months

Mean 13.1 7.4 7.0
N Analyzed 38 43 41
95% CI low 12.4 7.9 9.2
95% CI high 22.1 12.2 15.7


7 months

Mean 8.8 6.1 7.7
N Analyzed 38 43 41
95% CI low 8.1 7.0 8.0
95% CI high 12.2 10.5 12.3


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Yes Implied no differences
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes No difference
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups Yes <20% lack of completion (overlaps with dropout)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Yes Same
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence Low "Urn randomization"
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study High Not possible
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. High Not possible
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. Unclear no data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low <20% dropout
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.