Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240634›Full record

ReviewCNS drugs2019

Outcome Assessment in Trials of Pharmacological Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorders: Fair and Strict Testing.

Susanne Rösner, Michael Soyka

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS drugs, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Susanne RösnerForel Clinic, Addiction Treatment Center, Islikonerstrasse 5, 8548, Ellikon an der Thur, Switzerland. susanne.roesner@forel-klinik.ch.
Michael SoykaPsychiatric Hospital, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9994-3524

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcome assessment in the pharmacological treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) faces specific challenges resulting from low adherence to treatment, high rates of dropout, and the susceptibility of patient self-reports to bias. This review discusses methodological issues in planning, conducting, and interpreting clinical trials on AUD treatment against the background of the principle of 'strictness and fairness' of testing. Threats to fairness include factors that limit the implementation of an intervention, such as low compliance and early treatment termination. In turn, fairness of testing is increased by factors that support the degree to which an intervention is implemented, such as the use of adequate pretreatments and the matching of psychosocial and pharmacological treatment strategies. Furthermore, selecting outcomes on the basis of an intervention's mechanism of action and including continuous outcomes as sensitive measures of drinking change further increases fairness by increasing the likelihood that the data will adequately reflect the effects of the intervention. On the other hand, strictness of testing is increased by all measures that limit the influence of confounders that could potentially lead to an overestimation of effects. The use of a side effect-mimicking placebo to prevent an unmasking of blinding and the repeated assessment of alcohol biomarkers to validate drinking self-reports might be valid strategies to further increase the strictness of testing by limiting risks of bias in trials of AUD treatment.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAlcoholismBiomarkersHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePlacebo EffectBiomarkers

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.