ReviewClinical child and family psychology review2018
Psychological Treatments for Mental Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Evidence of Leading International Organizations.
Review in Clinical child and family psychology review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Metacognitive interventions for adolescents with mental disorders: a scoping review.Pediatric research · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing psychological versus pharmacological treatment in emotional disorders: A network analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Editorial Promoting Help-seeking using E-Technology for ADolescents: The ProHEAD consortium.Trials · 2019Article
- Evidence-Based Brief Psychological Treatment for Emotional Disorders in Primary and Specialized Care: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Brief psychological treatments for emotional disorders in Primary and Specialized Care: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent decades, the evidence on psychological treatments for children and adolescents has increased considerably. Several organizations have proposed different criteria to evaluate the evidence of psychological treatment in this age group. The aim of this study was to analyze evidence-based treatments drawn from RCTs, reviews, meta-analyses, guides and lists provided by four leading international organizations. The institutions reviewed were the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (Division 53) of the American Psychological Association, Cochrane Collaboration and the Australian Psychological Society in relation to mental disorders in children and adolescents. A total of 137 treatments were analyzed for 17 mental disorders and compared to determine the level of agreement among the organizations. The results indicate that, in most cases, there is little agreement among organizations and that there are several discrepancies within certain disorders. These results require reflection on the meaning attributed to evidence-based treatments with regard to psychological treatments in children and adolescents. The possible reasons for these differences could be explained by a combination of different issues: the procedures or committees may be biased, different studies were reviewed, different criteria are used by the organizations or the reviews of existing evidence were conducted in different time periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29611062What 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.