{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02913907284768212, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.132075471698113, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multiple comparison of different noninvasive brain stimulation and pharmacologic interventions in patients with methamphetamine use disorders: A network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

In recent decades, the prevalence of amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders has at least doubled in some regions/countries, with accompanying high risks of drug overdose‐associated mortality. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods may be effective treatments. However, the comparative efficacy of the NIBS protocol for amphetamine/methamphetamine use disorder (AUD/MUD) remains unknown to date. The aim of this network meta‐analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various NIBS methods/protocols for AUD/MUD management.