Unfortunately, not all alternative explanations were considered by Tyrer and colleagues (2003a) when the findings of the POPMACT study were published.

ELLA ARENSMAN; CARMEL McAULIFFE; PAUL CORCORAN; IVAN J. PERRY

doi:10.1017/S0033291704002752

Unfortunately, not all alternative explanations were considered by Tyrer and colleagues (2003a) when the findings of the POPMACT study were published.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2004

PAUL CORCORAN and

Abstract

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Correspondence
Information: Psychological Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , August 2004 , pp. 1143 - 1146

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704002752 [Opens in a new window]

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article contents

Unfortunately, not all alternative explanations were considered by Tyrer and colleagues (2003a) when the findings of the POPMACT study were published.

Abstract

Access options

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

Unfortunately, not all alternative explanations were considered by Tyrer and colleagues (2003a) when the findings of the POPMACT study were published.

Abstract

Access options

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests