Cited by 6Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Can network meta-analysis substitute for direct comparisons in psychotherapy trials?

Swartz, Holly A., Fournier, Jay·2019·JAMA Psychiatry

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0243

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swartz, H. A., & Fournier, J.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
76
Issue
7
Pages
678
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2937426091
Cited by
6
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
network meta-analysis, head-to-head comparison, treatment comparison, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Adult, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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