ReviewEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2013
Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.
Review in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visitors' Assessment and Utilization of Evidence-Based Program Resources (EBPR) Websites.Substance use & misuse · 2022Article
- State behavioral health agency website references to evidence-based program registers.Evaluation and program planning · 2021Article
- Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims. To assess the breadth of mental and substance coverage in the Cochrane review system. Methods. All mental health and substance entries were identified from the 2005 to April 2012 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results. A total of 1019 entries focused on mental health or substance misuse, with 698 (68.5%) being completed reviews. One out of every five entries focused on serious mental illness/psychosis. Systematic reviews addressing unipolar depression, dementia and certain substance disorders also appeared well-represented. In contrast, a number of impairing disorders frequently seen in practice received less attention, with bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and autism spectrum disorders each accounting for less than 2% of the entries. The majority of interventions reviewed involved medication (57.1%), although this was not the case for a number of childhood-onset disorders. Some diagnostic areas (sleep, anxiety, mood and substance) were addressed by multiple Cochrane review groups (CRGs). Conclusions. The Cochrane Collaboration is well poised to be a strong guiding influence to those seeking to employ evidence-based mental health care. Broadening its diagnostic coverage and diversifying types of intervention reviewed would probably further maximize its impact. A more centralized and directed approach of prioritizing topics could help ensure more comprehensive coverage.
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.