Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
IF
  1. Andrea Cipriani1,2,3,
  2. Samuele Cortese4,5,6,7,
  3. Toshi A Furukawa8
  1. 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. 2Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
  3. 3Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
  4. 4Centre for Innovation in Mental Health, School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, Clinical and Experimental Sciences (CNS and Psychiatry), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  5. 5Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  6. 6Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone, New York, New York, USA
  7. 7Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  8. 8Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Professor Andrea Cipriani, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK; andrea.cipriani{at}psych.ox.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

When we took the editorship of Evidence-Based Mental Health (EBMH) at the end of 2013, we set two main objectives: to promote and embed an evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach into daily mental health clinical practice, and to get an impact factor (IF) for EBMH. Both aims have been big challenges and we have learnt a lot.

EBM has been around for about 30 years now, shaping and changing the way we practice medicine. When Guyatt and colleagues published their seminal paper in 1992,1 EBM was described as the combination of three intersecting domains: the best available evidence, the clinical state and circumstances, and patient’s preferences and values. EBM and EBMH have since continuously evolved to deepen our understanding of these three domains.

The best available evidence

We keep complaining about the poor quality of studies in mental health. To properly assess the effects of interventions and devices before and after regulatory approval, we all know that randomised controlled trials are the best study design.2 3 However, real-world data are crucial to shed light on key clinical questions,4 especially when adverse events5 or prognostic factors6 are investigated. It necessarily …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @And_Cipriani, @Toshi_FRKW

  • Contributors AC drafted the editorial. SC and TAF critically revised the text. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.