ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2012
Measuring severe adverse events and medication selection using a "PEER Report" for nonpsychotic patients: a retrospective chart review.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02988076 (A Prospective, Double Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Multisite Study to Evaluate the Utility, Safety, and Efficacy of Using PEER Interactive to Inform Medication Prescription to Subjects With a Primary Diagnosis of a Depressive Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Prospective, Double Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Multisite Study to Evaluate the Utility, Safety, and Efficacy of Using PEER Interactive to Inform Medication Prescription to Subjects With a Primary Diagnosis of a Depressive Disorder(SMART-MD)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Algorithm-informed treatment from EEG patterns improves outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- The use of the Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluation Registry (PEER) to personalize pharmacotherapy.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledWe previously reported on an objective new tool that uses quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) normative- and referenced-electroencephalography sampling databases (currently called Psychiatric EEG Evaluation Registry [PEER]), which may assist physicians in determining medication selection for optimal efficacy to overcome trial-and-error prescribing. The PEER test compares drug-free QEEG features for individual patients to a database of patients with similar EEG patterns and known outcomes after pharmacological interventions. Based on specific EEG data elements and historical outcomes, the PEER Report may also serve as a marker of future severe adverse events (eg, agitation, hostility, aggressiveness, suicidality, homicidality, mania, hypomania) with specific medications. We used a retrospective chart review to investigate the clinical utility of such a registry in a naturalistic environment.
resultsThis chart review demonstrated significant improvement on the global assessment scales Clinical Global Impression - Improvement and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction - Short Form as well as time to maximum medical improvement and decreased suicidality occurrences. The review also showed that 54.5% of previous medications causing a severe adverse event would have been raised as a caution had the PEER Report been available at the time the drug was prescribed. Finally, due to the significant amount of off-label prescribing of psychotropic medications, additional, objective, evidence-based data aided the prescriber toward better choices.
conclusionThe PEER Report may be useful, particularly in treatment-resistant patients, in helping to guide medication selection. Based on the preliminary data obtained from this chart review, additional studies are warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of adding PEER data when making medication decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.