当前位置： SCI文献检索 > JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH期刊下所有文献 > A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of Major Depressive Disorder.

A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of Major Depressive Disorder.

Abstract：

:We compared scores from three different ratings methods in a clinical trial of patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (QIDS-SR16) was compared to site-based clinician and centralized (site-independent) ratings of the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (IDSc30). An extracted QIDSc16 was used for a matched comparison with the QIDS-SR16. Patient self-ratings were more depressed at baseline than either site-based ratings (p = 0.131) or centralized ratings (p = 0.005), but significantly less depressed at the end of double-blind treatment than either site-based (p = 0.006) or centralized ratings (p = 0.014), and after 12 weeks (site-based ratings: p = 0.048; centralized ratings: p = 0.004). The matched comparisons with patient self-ratings revealed ICC of r = 0.55 (site-based raters) and r = 0.49 (centralized raters) at baseline. After baseline, the correlations between the two different clinician ratings and patient self-ratings improved to r-values between 0.78 and 0.89. At the end of double-blind treatment, site-based raters separated the combination treatment from placebo on the IDSc30 (p = 0.030) whereas neither centralized ratings nor patient self-ratings achieved statistical significance. Alternatively, patient self-ratings separated the combination treatment from buspirone (p = 0.030) whereas neither clinician rating method achieved significance. A "dual" scoring concordance range reduced the placebo response rate and increased the drug effect between the combination treatment and placebo. These findings reveal scoring variability between each of the three ratings methods and challenge the reliability of any single method to accurately assess symptom severity scores, particularly at baseline. The use of "dual" scoring criteria may help to confirm symptom severity scores and improve ratings precision, particularly prior to enrolling subjects into CNS trials.

journal_name

J Psychiatr Res

journal_title

Journal of psychiatric research

authors

Targum SD,Wedel PC,Robinson J,Daniel DG,Busner J,Bleicher LS,Rauh P,Barlow C

doi

10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.02.016

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2013-07-01 00:00:00

pages

944-54

issue

eissn

0022-3956

issn

1879-1379

pii

S0022-3956(13)00082-4

journal_volume

pub_type

临床试验,杂志文章,随机对照试验

在线工具

A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of Major Depressive Disorder.