Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T12:00:21.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Meta-review of high-quality systematic reviews of interventions in key areas of liaison psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rachel Ruddy*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Allan House
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
*
Dr Rachel Ruddy, Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LT, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 113 343 2741; fax: +44 (0) 113 243 3719; e-mail: R.A.Ruddy@leeds.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

When planning and delivering a liaison psychiatry service it is important to have an understanding of the research evidence supporting the use of interventions likely to be delivered by the service.

Aims

To identify high-quality systematic reviews for all interventions in three defined areas of liaison psychiatry, to summarise their clinical implications and to highlight areas where more research is needed. The three areas were the psychological effects of physical illness or treatment, somatoform disorders and self-harming behaviour.

Method

Computerised database searching, secondary reference searching, hand-searching and expert consultation were used to identify relevant systematic reviews. Studies were reliably selected, and quality-assessed, and data were extracted and interpreted by two reviewers.

Results

We found 64 high-quality systematic reviews. Only 14 reviews included meta-analyses.

Conclusions

Many areas of liaison psychiatry practice are not based on high-quality evidence. More research in this area would help inform development and planning of liaison psychiatry services.

Information

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 
Figure 0

Table 1 Number of systematic reviews included for each area of the meta-review

Figure 1

Table 2 Included reviews with meta-analyses (14 reviews)

Figure 2

Table 3 Included reviews without meta-analyses (48 reviews)

Figure 3

Table 4 Areas covered by our review for which there is no quality systematic review of the literature (bullet point indicates absence of reviews)

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.