ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamics of depression symptoms in adolescents during three types of psychotherapy and post-treatment follow-up.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Trial
- Towards closed-loop precision psychiatry: Integrating MRI biomarkers for individualized care of major depressive disorder.Psychoradiology · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- The impact of music, play, and pet therapies in managing pain and anxiety in paediatric patients in hospital: a rapid systematic review.Paediatrics & child health · 2023Review
- Article
- Revisiting the theoretical and methodological foundations of depression measurement.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2022Article
- Is Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Ready for Clinical Use as a Treatment Tool for Mental Health Targets in Children and Youth?Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2022Article
- Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of major depressive disorder in older adults: protocol for a methodological review.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.
methodsRCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.
resultsEighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.
conclusionsHeterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.
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.