Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27649987›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2016

[Internet-based interventions in the treatment of mental disorders : Overview, quality criteria, perspectives].

J P Klein, G Gerlinger, C Knaevelsrud, M Bohus, E Meisenzahl, A Kersting, S Röhr, S G Riedel-Heller, U Sprick, J Dirmaier and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. [Quality Indicators for Video Consultations in Primary Care - a Scoping Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

14 authors.

J P KleinKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland. philipp.klein@uksh.de.
G GerlingerDeutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde, Berlin, Deutschland.
C KnaevelsrudKlinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
M BohusInstitut für Psychiatrische und Psychosomatische Psychotherapie, Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Deutschland.
E MeisenzahlKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, LMU München, München, Deutschland.
A KerstingKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
S RöhrInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health (ISAP), Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
S G Riedel-HellerInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Arbeitsmedizin und Public Health (ISAP), Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
U SprickSt. Alexius/St. Josef Krankenhaus, Medizinische Fakultät der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Neuss, Deutschland.
J DirmaierInstitut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
M HärterInstitut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
U HegerlKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
F HohagenKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland.
I HauthZentrum für Neurologie, Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Alexianer St. Joseph Krankenhaus, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental disorders are frequently not or only insufficiently treated. Internet-based interventions offer the potential of closing the existing gaps in the treatment of mental disorders; however, it is very difficult for patients and providers to choose from the numerous interventions available.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a set of quality criteria that can help patients and care providers to identify recommendable internet-based interventions.

methodsA selective literature search was carried out and the existing evidence on internet-based interventions in the treatment of mental disorders was collated. A panel of experts then developed quality criteria based on existing models for the systematic assessment of telemedicine applications.

resultsInternet-based interventions are effective in the treatment of a broad range of mental disorders. The best evidence is available for depression and anxiety disorders. A set of criteria is proposed for the evaluation of available internet-based interventions using a checklist. These criteria have to be developed further with input from other stakeholders. DISCUSSION: When taking these quality criteria into account, evidence-based interventions available on the internet can make an important contribution to improvement of the care of patients with mental disorders.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMental DisordersSelf CareTelemedicineTherapy, Computer-AssistedTreatment OutcomeAnxiety disordersDepressionPsychotherapyQuality assuranceTelemedicine

Identifiers

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.