Guidelines improve patient outcomes in specialised mental health care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal Information

Full Title: Acta Psychiatr Scand

Abbreviation: Acta Psychiatr Scand

Country: Unknown

Publisher: Unknown

Language: N/A

Publication Details

Subject Category: Psychiatry

Available in Europe PMC: Yes

Available in PMC: Yes

PDF Available: No

Transparency Score
3/6
0.0% Transparent
Transparency Indicators
Click on green indicators to view evidence text
Core Indicators
Data Sharing
Code Sharing
Evidence found in paper:

"CONFLICT OF INTEREST All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf , they have no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

Evidence found in paper:

"Funding information"

Evidence found in paper:

"The registration number of this study can be found on PROSPERO (CRD42020171311). For this meta‐analysis and systematic review, a literature search was performed in a number of databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 10 August 2020 (for the complete search string, see Table ). The unique records were imported into Covidence Systematic Review Software for the screening process. After importation, two independent assessors (KS and KB) screened the titles and abstracts independently on the inclusion criteria (see below). Next, both assessors conducted a full‐text review of the remaining studies in Covidence. The reference lists of studies included in the full‐text review were also searched for relevant articles. In case of disagreement, consensus was reached by discussion with a third assessor (AvB). This method section was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Method: Six databases were searched until 10 August 2020. Studies were selected, and data were extracted independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. Random effects meta‐analyses were used to pool estimates across studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group criteria. PROSPERO:CRD42020171311."

Open Access
Additional Indicators
Replication
Novelty Statement
Assessment Info

Tool: rtransparent

OST Version: N/A

Last Updated: Aug 05, 2025