It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions.

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

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

1. Does Mandala Art Improve Psychological Well-Being in Patients? A Systematic Review.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024
   Pooled it
2. Effectiveness and mechanisms of the arts therapies in forensic care. A systematic review, narrative synthesis, and meta analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023
   Pooled it
3. The effectiveness of art therapy for anxiety in adults: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.PloS one · 2018
   Pooled it
4. Considerations of complexity in rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews: a primer on using the GRADE approach in global health.BMJ global health · 2019
   Article
5. Does Mandala Art Therapy Improve Psychological Well-Being of Gynecological Cancer Patients During the Perioperative Period? A Quasi-Experimental Study.Integrative cancer therapies
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Reviewing and interpreting the effects of brief alcohol interventions: comment on a Cochrane review about motivational interviewing for young adults.2016
• Comment on
  Back to basics.2016
• Comment on
  Is it time to define minimally clinically important differences for patient-reported outcome measures used in alcohol brief intervention studies?2016
• Comment on
  Is it time for a more ambitious research agenda for decreasing alcohol-related harm among young adults?2016
• Comment on
  We cannot ignore bias, especially if effects are small, but we need better methods for evaluating prevention systems.2016

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as