Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27709242›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2017

[Care differences in a consultation and liaison service].

J Valdés-Stauber, S Bachthaler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

J Valdés-StauberAbteilung Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie I, Universität Ulm, Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg, Weingartshofer Straße 2, 88214, Ravensburg, Deutschland. juan.valdes-stauber@zfp-zentrum.de.
S BachthalerAbteilung für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Ravensburg, Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg, Ravensburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe investigation of the real density of care by a consultation-liaison service (CLS) as a function of patient groups, settings and diagnoses makes sense with respect to a better allocation of resources.

objectiveAre there differences concerning the density of care by a CLS in a general hospital depending on patient groups and on the psychiatric diagnosis?

methodA retrospective (2012-2015) survey of all consultations (n = 7081 corresponding to 4080 patients) was carried out based on the CLS documentation for quality assurance. Bivariate tests (i.e. χ

resultsThe number of consultations achieved corresponded to 3.2 % of the total admissions to hospital, especially internal medicine (22.3 %), surgery (26.1 %) as well as gynecology and obstetrics (21.1 %). A suicide attempt was the reason for treatment in 3.3 %. Each patient received on average 1.7 consultations lasting 75 min but only 25 % received 2 or more consultations. Patients with psychiatric comorbidities, non-oncology patients as well as female and young patients received a more intensive care by CLS. Patients with depressive and somatoform disorders received a higher density of treatment. DISCUSSION: The psychotherapeutic interventions performed did not follow the expected diagnostic patterns in other settings. Systemic interventions with indirect treatment should be given priority in older patients and especially in patients with organic mental disorders.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareDepressive DisorderFemaleGermanyHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, GeneralHumansMaleMedicineMental DisordersMiddle AgedPatient AdmissionReferral and ConsultationConsultation and liaison psychiatryGeneral hospitalPsychiatric carePsycho-oncologyPsychosomatic care

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.