Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26792834›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2016

Approaches for synthesising complex mental health interventions in meta-analysis.

Deborah M Caldwell, Nicky J Welton

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Deborah M CaldwellSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicky J WeltonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation MR/KO232331/1Cancer Research UKDepartment of Health 15/49/08Medical Research Council G0802413Medical Research Council G0902118Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical and statistical heterogeneity are commonplace in meta-analysis of mental health interventions. One possible source of this heterogeneity is the complexity of the intervention being evaluated. Complexity may relate to the intervention, or to the way in which it is implemented; however, the most common interpretation of a complex intervention is one which has multiple, potentially interacting components. In this article we outline different analytical strategies suggested for incorporating intervention complexity in a meta-analysis.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMental DisordersTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26792834
PMCPMC10699336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.