© 1998 Evidence-Based Mental Health
Why we do not abstract analogue studies of treatment outcome and scale development
One of the basic principles behind the publication of Evidence-Based Mental Health (EBMH) is that the research which we abstract in the journal should have immediate practical implications for mental health clinicians. The key question we ask ourselves in selecting studies to include in EBMH is will mental health clinicians be able to use the findings of this study in their practice? We do not believe that the results of analogue studies are useful in clinical practice, and in this note we outline our reasoning. By analogue studies, we are referring to studies in which the therapeutic setting is in some senses an "analogue" of routine clinical practice or the participants (usually students) are different from those to whom the treatment or scale will ultimately be applied.
There are various issues that determine how useful a study can be to practitioners, some of which are shared by research in other
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
