Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16282004›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2005

Interventions to improve management of anxiety disorders in general practice: a systematic review.

Jantien Heideman, Eric van Rijswijk, Nieke van Lin, Sandra de Loos, Miranda Laurant, Michel Wensing, Eloy van de Lisdonk, Richard Grol

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Jantien HeidemanCentre for Quality of Care Research (WOK) University Medical Centre Nijmegen, The Netherlands. j.heideman@wok.umcn.nl
Eric van Rijswijk
Nieke van Lin
Sandra de Loos
Miranda Laurant
Michel Wensing
Eloy van de Lisdonk
Richard Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnxiety disorders are common in general practice and are associated with several problems regarding recognition and management.

aimTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving recognition, diagnosis, and management of patients with anxiety disorders. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review.

methodMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials' Register were searched up until 2003. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before/after trials, and interrupted time series for professional, organisational, financial, and regulatory interventions were eligible. Primary effect measures consisted of anxiety outcomes, diagnosis, prescription, and referral. Two reviewers independently made eligibility judgments: eight out of 563 articles were found to be eligible. Two reviewers participated independently in the quality assessment and data extraction process using a standardised form based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care checklist. Relative risks or standardised mean differences were calculated when possible.

resultsFour professional interventions and three organisational interventions were examined. In general, the professional interventions seemed to increase recognition, referral, and prescription as well as improving anxiety outcomes. Two out of three organisational interventions showed a positive effect on anxiety outcomes. The one study that took prescription into account showed no effect.

conclusionsThe quality of care for patients with anxiety can be improved. A combination of professional and organisational interventions in which an external expert is introduced seems to be most promising. Additional research is nevertheless necessary to determine the exact effects of such interventions using patient effect measures, economic evaluations, and feasibility studies.

Indexed as

Anxiety DisordersFamily PracticeHumansProgram EvaluationPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID16282004
PMCPMC1570770

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.