Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A crucial, but under-appreciated, aspect in experimental research on psychosocial treatments of substance use disorders concerns what kinds of control groups are used. This paper examines how the distinction between different control-group designs have been handled by the Cochrane and the Campbell Collaborations in their systematic reviews of psychosocial treatments of substance abuse disorders. METHODS: We assessed Cochrane and Campbell reviews (n = 8) that were devoted to psychosocial treatments of substance use disorders. We noted what control groups were considered and analysed the extent to which the reviews provided a rationale for chosen comparison conditions. We also analysed whether type of control group in the primary studies influenced how the reviews framed the effects discussed and whether this was related to conclusions drawn. RESULTS: The reviews covered studies involving widely different control conditions. Overall, little attention was paid to the use of different control groups (e.g. head-to-head comparisons versus untreated controls) and what this implies when interpreting effect sizes. Seven of eight reviews did not provide a rationale for the choice of comparison conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane and Campbell reviews of the efficacy of psychosocial interventions with substance use disorders seem to underappreciate that the use of different control-group types yields different effect estimates. Most reviews have not distinguished between different control-group designs and therefore have provided a confused picture regarding absolute and relative treatment efficacy. A systematic approach to treating different control-group designs in research reviews is necessary for meaningful estimates of treatment efficacy.
Karlsson et al. (Thu,) studied this question.