Review tempers expectations for peer-led services but further studies are required.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. An Innovative Model of Depression Care Delivery: Peer Mentors in Collaboration with a Mental Health Professional to Relieve Depression in Older Adults.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2016
   Article
2. The professional experiences of peer specialists in the Georgia Mental Health Consumer Network.Community mental health journal · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.2014

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as