ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2023
Commentary: Why treatment is the best choice for childhood mental disorders - a commentary on Roest et al. (2022).
Article in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transparency, quality, and statistical consistency of meta-analytic systematic reviews in clinical child and adolescent psychology (2022-2024): study protocol for a meta-review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment with youth-initiated mentoring for youths with mental health needs from multi-problem families: a quasi-experimental study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Is more psychotherapy a dead horse? An essay on the (in)effectiveness of individual treatment for mental suffering.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- We need better long-term intervention programs in mental health care for children and young people with chronic vulnerabilities.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important question in mental healthcare for children is whether treatments are effective and safe in the long run. Here, we comment on a recent editorial perspective by Roest et al. (2022), who argue, based on an overview of systematic reviews, 'that there is no convincing evidence that interventions for the most common childhood disorders are beneficial in the long term'. We believe that the available evidence does not justify this conclusion and express our concern regarding the harmful effects of their message. We show that there is evidence to suggest beneficial longer term treatment effects for each of the disorders and explain why evidence-based treatment should be offered to children with mental disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.