Cited by 16Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentClinical practice guidelines implementationPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

NICE guidance on psychological treatments for bipolar disorder

Open access
Kendall, Tim, Morriss, Richard, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Meyer, Thomas D, Jones, Steven H, Oud, Matthijs, Baker, Mark R·2016·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

We wish to respond to the points raised by Jauhar and colleagues in their Personal View published online on February 4, 2016. 1 Jauhar S McKenna PJ Laws KR NICE guidance on psychological treatments for bipolar disorder: searching for the evidence. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016; (published online Feb 4.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00545-3 Google Scholar We will outline how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on bipolar disorder 2 National Collaborating Centre for Mental HealthBipolar disorder: the assessment and management of bipolar disorder in adults, children and young people in primary and secondary care, updated edition. Clinical guideline 185. [Full guideline]. The British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, London2014 Google Scholar was developed, using the process established by the NICE. Notably, this process is different to the development of a Cochrane meta-analysis and, indeed, many other guidelines. We also address six specific points raised by Jauhar and colleagues. 1 Jauhar S McKenna PJ Laws KR NICE guidance on psychological treatments for bipolar disorder: searching for the evidence. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016; (published online Feb 4.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00545-3 Google Scholar Psychosocial treatments in bipolar disorderWe read with interest the Comment by Tim Kendall and colleagues, in response to our Personal View on NICE guidance on psychosocial treatments in bipolar disorder.1 We feel that this Comment raises more questions than it answers. Two issues seem particularly important. Full-Text PDF

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(16)00082-1

Cites

4 of 4 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
Kendall, T., Morriss, R., Mayo-Wilson, E., Meyer, T. D., Jones, S. H., Oud, M., & Baker, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Mental Health (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Trimbos Institute (NL)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
Corresponding author
Kendall, Tim
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
317-320
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2321087830
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
bipolar disorder, psychological intervention, psychosocial interventions, NICE guidelines, clinical guideline development, evidence base
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Humans

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