Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32502181›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Trends in mental health clinical research: Characterizing the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from 2007-2018.

Joshua R Wortzel, Brandon E Turner, Brannon T Weeks, Christopher Fragassi, Virginia Ramos, Thanh Truong, Desiree Li, Omar Sahak, Hochang Benjamin Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review of mental health research in Turkiye: A view from ClinicalTrials.gov.Dusunen adam : Bakirkoy Ruh ve Sinir Hastaliklari Hastanesi yayin organi · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Joshua R WortzelDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5106-0802
Brandon E TurnerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara, Santa Clara, CA, United States of America.
Brannon T WeeksDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, MGH, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Christopher FragassiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
Virginia RamosDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
Thanh TruongDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Desiree LiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Omar SahakDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Hochang Benjamin LeeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8379-4018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the epidemiologic burden of mental health disorders in the United States has been well described over the past decade, we know relatively little about trends in how these disorders are being studied through clinical research. We examined all US interventional mental health trials submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007 and April 30, 2018 to identify trends in trial characteristics, comparisons with non-mental health trials, and trial attributes associated with discontinuation and results reporting. International data were excluded to minimize potential confounding. Over this period, mental health and non-mental health trials grew at similar rates, though Industry and US government-funded trials declined and academic medical center/hospital/other (AMC/Hosp/Oth) funded trials grew faster in mental health research. The proportion of trials with safeguards against bias, including blinding and oversight by data monitoring committees (DMCs), decreased. This occurred during growth in the proportion of trials studying behavioral and non-pharmacological interventions, which often cannot be blinded and do not require DMC oversight. There was concurrent decline in pharmaceutical trials. There was significant growth in trials studying Non-DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5) conditions (e.g. suicidality and wellness), as well as substance use, anxiety, and neurocognitive disorders. One in 12 trials was discontinued. Trial discontinuation was associated with industry and AMC/Hosp/Oth funders, pharmaceutical interventions, and lack of DMC oversight. Only 29.9% of completed trials reported results to the registry. Decreased results reporting was associated with behavioral interventions, phase 1 trials, and industry and AMC/Hosp/Oth funders. The main implications of these data are that funding is shifting away from traditional government and industry sources, there is increasing interest in non-pharmacological treatments and Non-DSM conditions, and there are changing norms in trial design characteristics regarding safeguards against bias. These trends can guide researchers and funding bodies when considering the trajectory of future mental health research.

Indexed as

BiasBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesHumansMental DisordersMental HealthPatient SelectionRegistriesResearch DesignUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32502181
PMCPMC7274444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.