Cited by 567Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologySchizophrenia research and treatment

Cognitive–behavioural therapy for severe and recurrent bipolar disorders: Randomised controlled trial

Open access
Scott, Jan, Paykel, Eugene, Morriss, Richard, Bentall, Richard, Kinderman, Peter, Johnson, Tony, Abbott, Rosemary, Hayhurst, Hazel·2006·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Efficacy trials suggest that structured psychological therapies may significantly reduce recurrence rates of major mood episodes in individuals with bipolar disorders. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of treatment as usual with an additional 22 sessions of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT). Method: We undertook a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled treatment trial (n=253). Patients were assessed every 8 weeks for 18 months. Results: More than half of the patients had a recurrence by 18 months, with no significant differences between groups (hazard ratio=1.05; 95% CI 0.74–1.50). Post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction (P=0.04) such that adjunctive CBT was significantly more effective than treatment as usual in those with fewer than 12 previous episodes, but less effective in those with more episodes. Conclusions: People with bipolar disorder and comparatively fewer previous mood episodes may benefit from CBT. However, such cases form the minority of those receiving mental healthcare.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.188.4.313

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, J., Paykel, E., Morriss, R., Bentall, R., Kinderman, P., Johnson, T., Abbott, R., & Hayhurst, H.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Royal Liverpool University Hospital (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Scott, Jan
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-04
Volume
188
Issue
4
Pages
313-320
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2269399764
Cited by
566
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 45
FWCI
27.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, bipolar disorder, mood episode recurrence, adjunctive psychotherapy, usual care, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Recurrence, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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