Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25264616›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Characteristics of effective collaborative care for treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-regression of 74 randomised controlled trials.

Peter A Coventry, Joanna L Hudson, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Janine Archer, David A Richards, Simon Gilbody, Karina Lovell, Chris Dickens, Linda Gask, Waquas Waheed and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03285659 (Study Protocol), which is not on this map. Cited by 108 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT03285659 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Study Protocol: Development and Assessment of an Active Strategy for the Implementation of a Collaborative Care Approach for Depression in Primary Care. The INDI·i Project

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i GurinaRan2018 to 2019Enrolled44ConditionsDepressionArmsIntervention: INDI Implementation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

108 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Task-Sharing Approaches to Improve Mental Health Care in Rural and Other Low-Resource Settings: A Systematic Review.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Peter A CoventryCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Centre for Primary Care and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Joanna L HudsonHealth Psychology Section, Psychology Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Evangelos KontopantelisNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Janine ArcherSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
David A RichardsInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Simon GilbodyMental Health Research Group, Department of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Karina LovellSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Chris DickensInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Linda GaskCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, Centre for Primary Care and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Waquas WaheedLancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, United Kingdom.
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 08/19/04Department of Health 10/57/43Medical Research Council G0401181Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). METHODS AND

findingsSystematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication.

conclusionTrials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntidepressive AgentsDepressionHumansAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID25264616
PMCPMC4180075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.