ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2016
Treatment patterns in inpatient depression care.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2016. 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.
- Abandoning personalization to get to precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2016Article
- 'Big data' in mental health research: current status and emerging possibilities.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2016Review
- Treatment patterns in inpatient depression care.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify latent patterns of treatment combinations in inpatient depression care. A secondary analysis of routinely collected data on inpatient depression treatment from 2133 patients was conducted. Exploratory latent class modeling was used to identify distinct classes of treatment combinations based on antidepressant medication, psychotherapeutic interventions, and additional treatments. The classes were compared with regard to patient characteristics and treatment outcomes. Eight different classes of inpatient treatment combinations could be identified: 22.8% of the patients were treated with a combination labelled "standard modern antidepressants", 14.6% with "standard tricyclic antidepressants", 12.2% with "high intensity innovative strategies", 12.1% with "standard selective-reuptake-inhibitors", and 11.6% with "low intensity", 9.6% with "somatic", 8.8% with "high intensity traditional", and 8.3% with "high intensity psychosocial" care, respectively. Patients treated with different patterns of interventions differed statistically significantly regarding demographic and clinical characteristics. Responder rates ranged from 68.4% to 86.6% across treatment classes. The presented attempt of empirical modeling of a complex multifactorial intervention by means of latent class analysis proved to be a promising way of capturing the complexity of routine inpatient depression treatment. The identified classes of treatment combinations may provide relevant information for a re-evaluation and improvement of inpatient depression treatment strategies.
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.