Submited on: 06 May 2012 11:19:19 PM GMT
Published on: 07 May 2012 10:52:13 PM GMT
 
Article Review
Posted by Ms. Danielle Bernard on 21 Nov 2016 03:27:03 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This paper concludes that group psychoeducation and cognitive behavioral therapy decrease recurrence of mania and depression in Bipolar Disorder, while family focused therapy does not demonstrate this benefit.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims were drawn directly from the results of three prior studies (cited in the article), and support conclusions reached by previous research and review articles:


    Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJJ, Sawyer AT, Fang A. The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses. Cognitive therapy and research. 2012;36(5):427-440. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1.


    Swartz HA, Swanson J. Psychotherapy for Bipolar Disorder in Adults: A Review of the Evidence. Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing). 2014;12(3):251-266. doi:10.1176/appi.focus.12.3.251.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The claims align with the literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Although the claims do reflect the individual studies selected for review, it may not be appropriate to attempt to generalize the conclusions beyond the scope of the original studies. A review incorportating multiple studies for each type of therapy would make the claims more powerful.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    It does not appear as though the authors have conducted their own analyses for this paper, rather they have summarized the analysis conducted in other papers.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This paper would be stronger if it reviewed a larger number of studies. As it is written, the paper does not offer any new insight with regard to the efficacy of the individual treatments in Bipolar Disorder, as it is simply directly summarizing the results of a single paper on each treatment. Incorporating multiple studies for each treatment would make the conclusions stronger.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    I do not consider this paper to be outstnading because it does not make any significant contributions to the literature.


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    ,

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have previously reviewed manuscripts in the field of neuropsychology

  • How to cite:  Bernard D .Article Review[Review of the article 'Positive and Negative Effect and Bipolar Disorder. Are the Psychosocial Therapies: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Family Focused Therapy and Group Psychoeducation in Adjunction with Pharmacotherapy Effective in the Management of Relapses of Manic and Depressive Episodes in Bipolar Disorder? ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003331
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse