ArticleNeuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater2020
[What is the meaning of significance - healed or only slightly improved? A comparison of different evaluation methods to assess depressive symptoms in ambulant rehabilitants].
Article in Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater, 2020. 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.
- Prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms among elite female beach volleyball players in the FIVB top 200.Discover mental health · 2026Article
- The benefit of an ambulant psychiatric rehabilitation program in Vienna, Austria: an uncontrolled repeated measures study.Central European journal of operations research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess treatment success of depressive symptoms, different statistical methods are available. Effect sizes, percentage improvement, significant improvement, and clinical significant improvement are established methods to assess treatment effects based on "patient reported outcomes". AIM OF THE STUDY: How do treatment effects differ according to the used method?
methodsFor N = 3018 patients treated in an ambulant psychiatric rehabilitation clinic, improvements were calculated based on effect sizes, percentage improvements, significant and clinical significant changes in Beck Depression-Inventory (BDI-II).
resultsFor the total sample, a sound medium effect of d = 0.62 was found, after exclusion of patients that were not depressed (euthymic) at time of admission, a large effect (d = 0.79) was calculated. The strongest informative value for symptom reduction of depression was found for the method of clinical significance, applying a cutoff score of 13 a total of 23% were classified as clinicalclinically significant and additional 19.3% as significantly improved. The method of percentagedpercentage improvement resulted in 30.4% of patients that achieved a value of at least 50%.
conclusionsEffect sizes give a rough overview over treatment success of a collective of patients, without consideration of the final state and the variability within the collective. The percentage improvement seems to be better suitable for examination of treatment response. With regard to clinical significance, results provide the most transparent information about significant improvements and change from dysfunctional to functional values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32162108What 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.