Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34645661›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Effect of specialised versus generalised outpatient treatment for bipolar disorder: the CAG Bipolar trial - study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Lars Vedel Kessing, Natacha Blauenfeldt Kyster, Pernille Bondo-Kozuch, Ellen Margrethe Christensen, Birgitte Vejstrup, Birte Smidt, Anne-Marie Bangsgaard Jørgensen, Raben Rosenberg, Darius Mardosas, Louise Behrend Rasmussen and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04229875 (Effects of Specialized Treatment for Bipolar Disorder - the CAG Bipolar RCT), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT04229875 naunknown statusnot on this map

Effects of Specialized Treatment for Bipolar Disorder - the CAG Bipolar RCT

TypeinterventionalSponsorMental Health Centre Copenhagen, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg HospitalRan2020 to 2025Enrolled1,000ConditionsBipolar DisorderArmsCAG Bipolar
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Lars Vedel KessingPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark lars.vedel.kessing@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-9377-9436
Natacha Blauenfeldt KysterPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pernille Bondo-KozuchPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ellen Margrethe ChristensenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Birgitte VejstrupPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Birte SmidtPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne-Marie Bangsgaard JørgensenPsychiatric Center North Zealand, Hillerød, Denmark.
Raben RosenbergPsychiatric Center Amager, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Darius MardosasPsychiatric Center Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.
Louise Behrend RasmussenPsychiatric Center Ballerup, Ballerup, Denmark.
Maj VinbergDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ida HagemanMental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Kobenhavn O, Denmark.
Maria Faurholt-JepsenPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
CAG Bipolar Study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite current available treatment patients with bipolar disorder often experience relapses and decreased overall functioning. Furthermore, patients with bipolar disorder are often not treated medically or psychologically according to guidelines and recommendations. A Clinical Academic Group is a new treatment initiative bringing together clinical services, research, education and training to offer care and treatment that is based on reliable evidence backed up by research. The present Clinical Academic Group for bipolar disorder (the CAG Bipolar) randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims for the first time to investigate whether specialised outpatient treatment in CAG Bipolar versus generalised community-based treatment improves patient outcomes and clinician's satisfaction with care in patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CAG Bipolar trial is a pragmatic randomised controlled parallel-group trial undertaken in the Capital Region of Denmark covering a catchment area of 1.85 million people. Patients with bipolar disorder are invited to participate as part of their outpatient treatment in the Mental Health Services. The included patients will be randomised to (1) specialised outpatient treatment in the CAG Bipolar (intervention group) or (2) generalised community-based outpatient treatment (control group). The trial started 13 January 2020 and has currently included more than 600 patients. The outcomes are (1) psychiatric hospitalisations and cumulated number and duration of psychiatric hospitalisations (primary), and (2) self-rated depressive symptoms, self-rated manic symptoms, quality of life, perceived stress, satisfaction with care, use of medication and the clinicians' satisfaction with their care (secondary). A total of 1000 patients with bipolar disorder will be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CAG Bipolar RCT is funded by the Capital Region of Denmark and ethical approval has been obtained from the Regional Ethical Committee in The Capital Region of Denmark (H-19067248). Results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, presented at scientific meetings and disseminated to patient organisations and media outlets. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04229875.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderAmbulatory CareHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOutpatientsPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designadult psychiatrydepression & mood disordersorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID34645661
PMCPMC8515461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.