Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434313›Full record

SynthesisAdministration and policy in mental health2023

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Measurement Feedback Systems in Treatment for Common Mental Health Disorders.

Kristian Rognstad, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, Simon-Peter Neumer, John Kjøbli

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Administration and policy in mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Adolescent Client and Clinician Predictors of Measurement-Based Care Fidelity in Community Mental Health Settings.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Patients' experiences with the routine use of a clinical feedback system prior to consultations in ostomy care: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kristian RognstadRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway. kristian.rognstad@r-bup.no.ORCID 0000-0002-9929-6897
Tore Wentzel-LarsenRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Simon-Peter NeumerRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
John KjøbliRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway · NOHøyskolen Kristiania · NONorwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate the effects of measurement feedback systems (MFSs) in therapy on mental health outcomes through a literature review and meta-analysis. Using a three-level modeling approach, we conducted a meta-analysis of all effect sizes from randomized controlled studies of MFSs used in the treatment of common mental health disorders. Eighty-two effect sizes were extracted from the thirty-one included studies. Analyses were performed to consider the post-treatment effects of the MFS-assisted treatment compared to treatment as usual. A separate analysis was done for the subgroup "not-on-track" patients as it is theorized that MFSs will be clinically useful because they make therapists aware of patients who fail to progress. MFSs had a significant effect on mental health outcomes (d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.082-0.206], p < .001). Further analysis found a larger effect in patients identified as less respondent to therapy, the "not-on-track" group (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.114, 0.464], p = .003). Moderation analyses indicated that the type of outcome measurement and type of feedback system used, and whether it was used for a child and youth or adult population, influenced effect sizes. MFSs seem to have a small positive effect on treatment outcomes. The effects seem to be larger for "not-on-track" patients, the group of patients that would usually not benefit much from treatment.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthAdolescentAdultChildFeedbackHumansTreatment OutcomeMeasurement feedback systemsMeta-analysisOutcome monitoringPsychotherapyThree-level analysis

Identifiers

PMID36434313
PMCPMC9931854
OpenAlexW4310081035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.