Trial reportHealth economics2012
Customization in prescribing for bipolar disorder.
Trial report in Health economics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician Prescribing Practices Involving Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Latent Class Analysis of Prescribing Behavior of Primary Care Physicians in the Veterans Health Administration.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Incorporating Patient Preferences into Estimation of Optimal Individualized Treatment Rules.Biometrics · 2018Article
- Patterns and predictors of physician adoption of new cardiovascular drugs.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- Testing for clinical inertia in medication treatment of bipolar disorder.Journal of affective disorders · 2016Article
- Changes in physician antipsychotic prescribing preferences, 2002-2007.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2014Article
- How quickly do physicians adopt new drugs? The case of second-generation antipsychotics.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For many disorders, patient heterogeneity requires physicians to customize their treatment to each patient's needs. We test for the existence of customization in physicians' prescribing for bipolar disorder, using data from a naturalistic clinical effectiveness trial of bipolar disorder treatment (STEP-BD), which did not constrain physician prescribing. Multinomial logit is used to model the physician's choice among five combinations of drug classes. We find that our observed measure of the patient's clinical status played only a limited role in the choice among drug class combinations, even for conditions such as mania that are expected to affect class choice. However, treatment of a patient with given characteristics differed widely depending on which physician was seen. The explanatory power of the model was low. There was variation within each physician's prescribing, but the results do not suggest a high degree of customization in physicians' prescribing, based on our measure of clinical status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.