The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Multicenter Trial of Intensive Early Intervention vs Standard Treatment for Patients With a First Episode of Psychotic Illness: The OPUS Trial
Abstract
CONTEXT: Intensive early treatment for first-episode psychosis has been shown to be effective. It is unknown if the positive effects are sustained for 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effects of an intensive early-intervention program (OPUS) for first-episode psychotic patients. DESIGN: Single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 2 years of an intensive early-intervention program vs standard treatment. Follow-up periods were 2 and 5 years. SETTING: Copenhagen Hospital Corporation and Psychiatric Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Patients A total of 547 patients with a first episode of psychosis. Of these, 369 patients were participating in a 2-year follow-up, and 301 were participating in a 5-year follow-up. A total of 547 patients were followed for 5 years. INTERVENTIONS: Two years of an intensive early-intervention program vs standard treatment. The intensive early-intervention treatment consisted of assertive community treatment, family involvement, and social skills training. Standard treatment offered contact with a community mental health center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychotic and negative symptoms were recorded. Secondary outcome measures were use of services and social functioning. RESULTS: Analysis was based on the principles of intention-to-treat. Assessment was blinded for previous treatment allocation. At the 5-year follow-up, the effect of treatment seen after 2 years (psychotic dimension odds ratio [OR], -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to -0.06; P = .02; negative dimension OR, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.22; P = .001) had equalized between the treatment groups. A significantly smaller percentage of patients from the experimental group were living in supported housing (4% vs 10%, respectively; OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .02) and were hospitalized fewer days (mean, 149 vs 193 days; mean difference, 44 days; 95% CI, 0.15-88.12; P = .05) during the 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The intensive early-intervention program improved clinical outcome after 2 years, but the effects were not sustainable up to 5 years later. Secondary outcome measures showed differences in the proportion of patients living in supported housing and days in hospital at the 5-year follow-up in favor of the intensive early-intervention program.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders
Marshall, M., & Lockwood, A. (1998) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001089 · Cited by 589
RetractedSCAN: Schedules fonr Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry
Wing, J. K. (1990) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180089012 · Cited by 2,517
Stein, L. I. (1980) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780170034003 · Cited by 1,902
Gueorguieva, R., & Krystal, J. H. (2004) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.3.310 · Cited by 1,529
PILLING, S., BEBBINGTON, P., KUIPERS, E., GARETY, P., GEDDES, J., ORBACH, G., & MORGAN, C. (2002) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291702005895 · Cited by 887
Early intervention for psychosis
Marshall, M., & Rathbone, J. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004718.pub3 · Cited by 531
Multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66461-6 · Cited by 366
Cited by
van Os, J., & Kapur, S. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60995-8 · Cited by 1,971
Galletly, C., Castle, D., Dark, F., Humberstone, V., Jablensky, A., Killackey, E., Kulkarni, J., McGorry, P., Nielssen, O., & Tran, N. (2016) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0004867416641195 · Cited by 877
Correll, C. U., Galling, B., Pawar, A., Krivko, A., Bonetto, C., Ruggeri, M., Craig, T. J., Nordentoft, M., Srihari, V. H., Guloksuz, S., et al. (2018) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0623 · Cited by 826
Self-citationColizzi, M., Lasalvia, A., & Ruggeri, M. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-020-00356-9 · Cited by 727
Penttilä, M., Jääskeläinen, E., Hirvonen, N., Isohanni, M., & Miettunen, J. (2014) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.127753 · Cited by 716
Metadata
- Authors
- Bertelsen, M., Jeppesen, P., Petersen, L., Thorup, A., Øhlenschlæger, J., le Quach, P., Christensen, T. Ø., Krarup, G., Jørgensen, P., & Nordentoft, M.
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2008-07-07
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 762
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123449469
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 20.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Multicenter Trial of Intensive Early Intervention vs Standard Treatment for Patients With a First Episode of Psychotic Illness: The OPUS Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.65.7.762
- The paper
- Bertelsen, M., Jeppesen, P., Petersen, L., Thorup, A., Øhlenschlæger, J., le Quach, P., Christensen, T. Ø., Krarup, G., Jørgensen, P., & Nordentoft, M. (2008). Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Multicenter Trial of Intensive Early Intervention vs Standard Treatment for Patients With a First Episode of Psychotic Illness: The OPUS Trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.7.762
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.