Evaluating the Evidence Base of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry

  • Tom Sensky

This chapter draws on the evidence base of consultation-liaison (CL) psychiatry to ask two questions: Is research in CL psychiatry more challenging or more complex than research in general psychiatry? If so, what factors make it more challenging? The focus here is exclusively on research involving adults, although there is a growing evidence base involving children and adolescents. In addition, the chapter addresses mainly intervention studies.


Complex Intervention Cognitive Therapy Psychosomatic Medicine Patient Expectation Last Observation Carry Forward 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878–1886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gross CP, Krumholz HM, Van Wye G, Emanuel EJ, Wendler D. Does random treatment assignment cause harm to research participants? PLoS Med 2006;3:e188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guthrie E, Sensky T. Psychological interventions in patients with physical symptoms. In: Guthrie E, Lloyd G, eds. Textbook of Liaison Psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270:2598–2601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hotopf M, Churchill R, Lewis G. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 1999;175:217–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1089–1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lavori PW, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al. Strengthening clinical effectiveness trials: equipoise-stratified randomization. Biol Psychiatry 2001;50:792–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Luborsky L, McLellan AT, Woody GE, O’Brien CP, Auerbach A. Therapist success and its determinants. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985;42:602–611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. Br Med J 2002;324:1448–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Persons JB, Silberschatz G. Are results of randomized controlled trials useful to psychotherapists? J Consult Clin Psychol 1998;66:126–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000;342:1907–1909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruddy R, House A. Meta-review of high-quality systematic reviews of interventions in key areas of liaison psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 2005;187:109–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salkovskis PM. Empirically grounded clinical interventions: cognitive-behavioural therapy progresses through a multi-dimensional approach to clinical science. Behav Cogn Psychother 2002;30:3–9.Google Scholar
  14. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seligman ME. Science as an ally of practice. Am Psychol 1996;51:1072–1079.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sensky T. Cognitive therapy with medical patients. In: Wright J, ed. American Psychiatric Association Press Review of Psychiatry, vol 23(3). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2004:83–121.Google Scholar
  17. Sensky T. The effectiveness of cognitive therapy for schizophrenia: what can we learn from the meta-analyses? Psychother Psychosom 2005;74:131–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharpe L, Ryan B, Allard S, Sensky T. Testing for the integrity of blinding in clinical trials: how valid are forced choice paradigms? Psychother Psychosom 2003a;72:128–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharpe L, Sensky T, Timberlake N, Ryan B, Allard S. Long-term efficacy of a cognitive behavioural treatment from a randomized controlled trial for patients recently diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2003b;42:435–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simons AD, Garfield SL, Murphy GE. The process of change in cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy for depression. Arch General Psychiatry 1984;41:45–51.Google Scholar
  21. Streiner DL. The case of the missing data: methods of dealing with dropouts and other research vagaries. Can J Psychiatry 2002;47:68–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tarrier N, Main CJ. Applied relaxation training for generalised anxiety and panic attacks: the efficacy of a learnt coping strategy on subjective reports. Br J Psychiatry 1986;149:330–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians’ reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1363–1367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weijer C, Shapiro SH, Cranley GK. For and against: clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2000;321:756–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Sensky
    • 1
  1. 1.West Middlesex University HospitalIsleworthUK

Personalised recommendations