SPECIALISED TEAM vs usual care: Compliance with treatment ‐ treatment stopped in spite of need ‐ by two years
SPECIALISED TEAM showed no clear difference in compliance with treatment ‐ treatment stopped in spite of need ‐ by… compared with STANDARD CARE (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
SPECIALISED TEAM vs STANDARD CARE Compliance with treatment ‐ treatment stopped in spite of need ‐ by two years · patients with psychosis SPECIALISED TEAM showed no clear difference in compliance with treatment ‐ treatment stopped in spite of need ‐ by… compared with STANDARD CARE (moderate certainty). Early intervention for psychosis (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.66 [0.29, 1.5] | 1 study · 436 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early intervention for psychosis 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.