Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15717113›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2005

["Home treatment" for mental illness. Concept definition and effectiveness].

T Berhe, B Puschner, R Kilian, T Becker

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

T BerheAbteilung Psychiatrie II, Universität Ulm, BKH Günzburg, Ludwig-Heilmeyer-Strasse.
B Puschner
R Kilian
T Becker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of projects have used home treatment (HT) for severely mentally ill people in recent years. This paper intends to define HT and show the main differences between it and other forms of psychiatric community service, present the existing evidence for HT, and discuss eligibility criteria. Studies about HT's efficacy in treating severely mentally ill adults were identified by electronic (MEDLINE, PsycLIT) and manual search. Six studies met these inclusion criteria. Compared to inpatient treatment, HT was equally or more efficacious in respect to reduction of symptom distress, social (re-)integration, and patient and carer satisfaction. Furthermore, direct costs for HT were often lower than for inpatient care. However, the number of relevant studies is limited and knowledge on the long-term effects of HT is sparse.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCommunity PsychiatryEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHome Care ServicesHumansMental DisordersPractice Patterns, Physicians'PsychiatrySeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.