Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23638942›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2013

Making the use of psychotropic drugs more rational through the development of GRADE recommendations in specialist mental healthcare.

Giovanni Ostuzzi, Irene Bighelli, Barbara-Vanessa Carrara, Nicola Dusi, Giuseppe Imperadore, Camilla Lintas, Francesco Nifosì, Michela Nosè, Carlo Piazza, Marianna Purgato and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

12 authors.

Giovanni OstuzziWHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. corrado.barbui@univr.it.
Irene Bighelli
Barbara-Vanessa Carrara
Nicola Dusi
Giuseppe Imperadore
Camilla Lintas
Francesco Nifosì
Michela Nosè
Carlo Piazza
Marianna Purgato
Raffaella Rizzo
Corrado Barbui

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn recent years the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology has often been used by international or national health authorities, or scientific societies, for developing evidence-based treatment recommendations. However, the GRADE approach has never been used by practicing physicians who aim at harmonizing their prescribing behaviours paying due attention to the best available evidence. This paper describes the experience of a working group of psychiatrists who adopted the GRADE approach to develop clinical recommendations on the use of psychotropic drugs in specialist mental healthcare. CASE DESCRIPTION: The project was conducted in the Department of Mental Health of Verona, Italy, a city located in the north of Italy. At the beginning of 2012, psychiatrists with a specific interest in the rational use of psychotropic drugs were identified and appointed as members of a Guideline Development Group (GDG). The first task of the GDG was the identification of controversial areas in the use of psychotropic drugs, the definition of scoping questions, and the identification of outcomes of interest. The GDG was supported by a scientific secretariat, who searched the evidence, identified one or more systematic reviews matching the scoping questions, and drafted GRADE tables. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: On the basis of efficacy, acceptability, tolerability and safety data, considering the risk of bias and confidence in estimates, and taking also into consideration preferences, values and practical aspects in favour and against the intervention under scrutiny, a draft recommendation with its strength was formulated and agreed by GDG members. Recommendations were submitted for consideration to all specialists of the Department, discussed in two plenary sessions open to the whole staff, and finally approved at the end of 2012.

conclusionThe present project of guideline development raised several challenging and innovating aspects, including a "bottom-up" approach, as it was motivated by reasons that found agreement among specialists, those who developed the recommendations were those who were supposed to follow them, and values, preferences and feasibility issues were considered paying due attention to local context variables.

Identifiers

PMID23638942
PMCPMC3653717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.