Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 599

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness

Open access
Petersen, Lone, Jeppesen, Pia, Thorup, Anne, Abel, Maj-Britt, Øhlenschlæger, Johan, Christensen, Torben Østergaard, Krarup, Gertrud, Jørgensen, Per, Nordentoft, Merete·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of integrated treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Copenhagen Hospital Corporation and Psychiatric Hospital Aarhus, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 547 patients with first episode of schizophrenia spectrum disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Integrated treatment and standard treatment. The integrated treatment lasted for two years and consisted of assertive community treatment with programmes for family involvement and social skills training. Standard treatment offered contact with a community mental health centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychotic and negative symptoms (each scored from 0 to a maximum of 5) at one and two years' follow-up. RESULTS: At one year's follow-up, psychotic symptoms changed favourably to a mean of 1.09 (standard deviation 1.27) with an estimated mean difference between groups of -0.31 (95% confidence interval -0.55 to -0.07, P = 0.02) in favour of integrated treatment. Negative symptoms changed favourably with an estimated difference between groups of -0.36 (-0.54 to -0.17, P < 0.001) in favour of integrated treatment. At two years' follow-up the estimated mean difference between groups in psychotic symptoms was -0.32 (-0.58 to -0.06, P = 0.02) and in negative symptoms was -0.45 (-0.67 to -0.22, P < 0.001), both in favour of integrated treatment. Patients who received integrated treatment had significantly less comorbid substance misuse, better adherence to treatment, and more satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSION: Integrated treatment improved clinical outcome and adherence to treatment. The improvement in clinical outcome was consistent at one year and two year follow-ups.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.38565.415000.e01

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 599

Metadata

Authors
Petersen, L., Jeppesen, P., Thorup, A., Abel, M.-B., Øhlenschlæger, J., Christensen, T. Ø., Krarup, G., Jørgensen, P., & Nordentoft, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-09-02
Volume
331
Issue
7517
Pages
602
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2118887555
Cited by
599
References
30
FWCI
15.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38565.415000.e01
The paper
Petersen, L., Jeppesen, P., Thorup, A., Abel, M.-B., Øhlenschlæger, J., Christensen, T. Ø., Krarup, G., Jørgensen, P., & Nordentoft, M. (2005). A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38565.415000.e01

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.