ReviewBJPsych open2024
Externally validated clinical prediction models for estimating treatment outcomes for patients with a mood, anxiety or psychotic disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Psychological Flourishing Among Psychologists: Integrating Self-Compassion, Traditional Regression, and Machine Learning Approaches.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuboptimal treatment outcomes contribute to the high disease burden of mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders. Clinical prediction models could optimise treatment allocation, which may result in better outcomes. Whereas ample research on prediction models is performed, model performance in other clinical contexts (i.e. external validation) is rarely examined. This gap hampers generalisability and as such implementation in clinical practice.
aimsSystematically appraise studies on externally validated clinical prediction models for estimated treatment outcomes for mood, anxiety and psychotic disorders by (1) reviewing methodological quality and applicability of studies and (2) investigating how model properties relate to differences in model performance.
methodThe review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022307987). A search was conducted on 8 November 2021 in the databases PubMED, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to examine between-study heterogeneity in discriminative performance and its relevant influencing factors.
resultsTwenty-eight studies were included. The majority of studies (
conclusionsFew models seem ready for further implementation in clinical practice to aid treatment allocation. Besides the need for more external validation studies, we recommend close examination of the clinical setting before model implementation.
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.