Trial reportJournal of affective disorders2016
A cluster analytic approach to identifying predictors and moderators of psychosocial treatment for bipolar depression: Results from STEP-BD.
Trial report in Journal of affective disorders, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A positive psychology intervention for patients with bipolar depression: a randomized pilot trial.Journal of mental health (Abingdon, England) · 2020Trial
- Group Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP): A Pilot Study for Bipolar Depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Does stage of illness influence recovery-focused outcomes after psychological treatment in bipolar disorder? A systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to address how predictors and moderators of psychotherapy for bipolar depression - identified individually in prior analyses - can inform the development of a metric for prospectively classifying treatment outcome in intensive psychotherapy (IP) versus collaborative care (CC) adjunctive to pharmacotherapy in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program (STEP-BD) study.
methodsWe conducted post-hoc analyses on 135 STEP-BD participants using cluster analysis to identify subsets of participants with similar clinical profiles and investigated this combined metric as a moderator and predictor of response to IP. We used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses and k-means clustering to determine the content of the clinical profiles. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate whether the resulting clusters predicted or moderated likelihood of recovery or time until recovery.
resultsThe cluster analysis yielded a two-cluster solution: 1) "less-recurrent/severe" and 2) "chronic/recurrent." Rates of recovery in IP were similar for less-recurrent/severe and chronic/recurrent participants. Less-recurrent/severe patients were more likely than chronic/recurrent patients to achieve recovery in CC (p=.040, OR=4.56). IP yielded a faster recovery for chronic/recurrent participants, whereas CC led to recovery sooner in the less-recurrent/severe cluster (p=.034, OR=2.62). LIMITATIONS: Cluster analyses require list-wise deletion of cases with missing data so we were unable to conduct analyses on all STEP-BD participants.
conclusionsA well-powered, parametric approach can distinguish patients based on illness history and provide clinicians with symptom profiles of patients that confer differential prognosis in CC vs. IP.
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.