Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29588046›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry2018

Meta-Analyses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Getting Closer to Clinical Practice.

Samuele Cortese

Abstract readEditorialComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Samuele CorteseCenter for Innovation in Mental Health, Academic Unit of Psychology and Clinical and Experimental Sciences (CNS and Psychiatry), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK; the Solent National Health Service Trust, Southampton, UK; the New York University Child Study Center, New York, NY; and the Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Electronic address: samuele.cortese@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adolescent PsychiatryAnxiety DisordersAdolescentAntidepressive AgentsChildHumansTreatment OutcomeAntidepressive Agents

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.