ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparison of the therapeutic effects of open psychiatric wards for patients with depression: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the differences in treatment outcomes between open and closed psychiatric wards for hospitalized patients with depression, and to provide evidence-based support for optimizing psychiatric ward management models. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP Database were searched for relevant literature published from inception to December 20, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the therapeutic effects of open versus closed psychiatric wards in hospitalized patients with depression were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: A total of 9 RCTs were included. The meta-analysis showed that the open psychiatric ward group achieved better outcomes than the closed psychiatric ward group in depression symptom scores, with statistically significant differences in both the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) score [MD = -3.81, 95% CI (-4.22, -3.40)] and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score [MD = -0.99, 95% CI (-1.18, -0.81)] (both P < 0.01). In terms of treatment adherence, the open ward group was higher than the closed psychiatric ward group [RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.04, 1.47), P = 0.02]. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in clinical response rate [RR = 1.09, 95% CI (0.92, 1.29), P = 0.32]. Neither Egger's regression test nor Begg's rank correlation test indicated significant publication bias. Conclusion: Compared with closed psychiatric wards, open psychiatric wards may help improve depressive symptoms and increase treatment adherence among hospitalized patients with depression; however, their effect on clinical response rate remains unclear. Future high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to further verify the efficacy and safety of open psychiatric wards.
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.