ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2016
IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONABLE EXCLUSION CRITERIA IN MENTAL DISORDER CLINICAL TRIALS USING A MEDICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence Rates and Evolution of Psychiatric Disorders Among Incarcerated Youths in Comparison With Non-incarcerated Youths.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Traumatic loss and psychosis - reconceptualising the role of trauma in psychosis.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2020Article
- Correlating eligibility criteria generalizability and adverse events using Big Data for patients and clinical trials.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2017Article
- Clinical Research Informatics for Big Data and Precision Medicine.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Article
- GIST 2.0: A scalable multi-trait metric for quantifying population representativeness of individual clinical studies.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
- METHODS TO ENHANCE THE REPRODUCIBILITY OF PRECISION MEDICINE.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precision medicine requires precise evidence-based practice and precise definition of the patients included in clinical studies for evidence generalization. Clinical research exclusion criteria define confounder patient characteristics for exclusion from a study. However, unnecessary exclusion criteria can weaken patient representativeness of study designs and generalizability of study results. This paper presents a method for identifying questionable exclusion criteria for 38 mental disorders. We extracted common eligibility features (CEFs) from all trials on these disorders from ClinicalTrials.gov. Network Analysis showed scale-free property of the CEF network, indicating uneven usage frequencies among CEFs. By comparing these CEFs' term frequencies in clinical trials' exclusion criteria and in the PubMed Medical Encyclopedia for matching conditions, we identified unjustified potential overuse of exclusion CEFs in mental disorder trials. Then we discussed the limitations in current exclusion criteria designs and made recommendations for achieving more patient-centered exclusion criteria definitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26776188PMC4717913What 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.