Trial reportInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2016
Evaluating cognitive effort in a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Evaluating cognitive effort in a randomized controlled trial.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2016Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neuropsychiatric conditions involve cognitive outcome measures; however, validity of cognitive data relies on adequate effort during testing, and such screening is seldom performed. Given well-established rates of 10 to 30% poor effort in clinical settings, this is not a trivial concern. This preliminary study evaluated effort during cognitive testing in an RCT of omega-3 supplementation to reduce suicidality in a high-risk psychiatric population. An interim analysis of sustained attentions measures from the Connors Performance Test (CPT-2) at baseline for the first 60 participants was conducted. Previously validated cut points to detect insufficient effort on the CPT-2 were applied. At baseline, 12% (7) were identified as giving poor effort. Follow-up analyses indicated less psychiatric distress and suicidality among those who gave poor effort. Results suggest comparable likelihood of a poor effort on cognitive testing in clinical and RCT participation. Reduced psychiatric distress in the poor effort group raises concern regarding interpretation of other measures. The importance of screening cognitive data for effort in RCTs is highlighted. Future studies will examine effort at follow-up visits, and explore relationships to attrition, adherence, and response to treatment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.