Cited by 9

Effectiveness of dialectical behavior therapy versus collaborative assessment and management of suicidality treatment for reduction of self-harm in adults with borderline personality traits and disorder-a randomized observer-blinded clinical trial

Andreasson·2016·Depression and Anxiety

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.2016.33.issue-6

Cites

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?

  • The DiaS RCT was underpowered, and while data were favorable toward CAMS, the differences did not reach statistical significance.

    “This RCT was underpowered, and while data were favorable toward CAMS, the differences did not reach statistical significance.”
  • In the Danish DiaS RCT, both DBT and CAMS were proven effective in decreasing suicide attempts and self-harm, with data trending in favor of CAMS despite a much lower dose of CAMS.

    “In this study, both treatments were proven effective in decreasing primary outcome variables of suicide attempts and self-harm with data trending in favor of CAMS (even while the “dose” of CAMS was much less, e.g., 10 sessions once per week vs. 16 sessions of twice per week meetings).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andreasson
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2016-06
Volume
33
Issue
6
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4254349339
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Yale University
  • University of Miami
  • McLean Hospital
  • Emory University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • University of Regina
  • Rush University
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • University of Oxford
  • Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • School of Medicine, Emory University
  • University of California, San Diego
  • National Institute of Mental Health

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