...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of psychiatric research >A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of major depressive disorder
【24h】

A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of major depressive disorder

机译:重大抑郁症临床试验中基于站点的评估和集中评估与患者自我评估之间的比较分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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.
机译:我们在重大抑郁症(MDD)患者的临床试验中比较了三种不同评级方法的得分。将抑郁症状快速清单(QIDS-SR16)与基于现场的临床医生和抑郁症状清单(IDSc30)的集中(独立于站点)评级进行了比较。提取的QIDSc16用于与QIDS-SR16进行匹配比较。患者的自我评价在基线时比基于地点的评价(p = 0.131)或集中式评价(p = 0.005)要低,但是与任何基于地点的评价(p = 0.006)相比,双盲治疗结束时的抑郁程度要少)或集中评分(p = 0.014),以及12周后(基于网站的评分:p = 0.048;集中评分:p = 0.004)。与患者自评的匹配比较显示,基线时ICC为r = 0.55(基于站点的评分者)和r = 0.49(集中式评分者)。在基线之后,两个不同的临床医生评分和患者自我评分之间的相关性改善到r值介于0.78和0.89之间。在双盲治疗结束时,基于位点的评分者将联合治疗与IDSc30上的安慰剂分开(p = 0.030),而集中评分和患者自我评分均未达到统计学意义。或者,患者的自我评价将联合治疗与丁螺环酮分开(p = 0.030),而两种临床医生的评价方法均无意义。 “双重”评分一致性范围降低了安慰剂反应率并增加了联合治疗与安慰剂之间的药物作用。这些发现揭示了三种评分方法之间的评分差异,并挑战了任何一种方法来准确评估症状严重程度评分的可靠性,尤其是在基线时。 “双重”评分标准的使用可能有助于确认症状严重程度评分并提高评分准确性,尤其是在将受试者纳入CNS试验之前。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号