ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry2018
Meta-Analyses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Getting Closer to Clinical Practice.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rigorously conducted meta-analyses provide evidence synthesis that has the potential to inform daily clinical decision making and development of clinical guidelines. In the past decade, there has been an increasing number of studies on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders. Given this large body of research, busy clinicians might tend to rely on meta-analyses, rather than individual trials, to keep abreast of the evidence base supporting intervention strategies in child and adolescent psychiatry. Many meta-analyses focused on treatments for child and adolescent mental health problems have primarily addressed the question: Is treatment X more efficacious/effective (or safer) than the control condition? This is clearly an important starting point for clinicians when discussing with their patients and families the benefits and risks of treatment X, but clinicians need to know more. For instance, they might look for the evidence base to answer the following questions: Is treatment X the most efficacious and effective (or safest) option for my patient? When will treatment X likely start working? If the dose or intensity of the treatment does not seem to be effective, is it worthwhile to increase it? And if so, how?
Indexed as
Identifiers
29588046What 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.