Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34356141›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Imputing the Number of Responders from the Mean and Standard Deviation of CGI-Improvement in Clinical Trials Investigating Medications for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Spyridon Siafis, Alessandro Rodolico, Oğulcan Çıray, Declan G Murphy, Mara Parellada, Celso Arango, Stefan Leucht

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Retrospective Study Examining Predictors of Treatment Response in Over 1,300 Children and Adolescents with Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Spyridon SiafisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8264-2039
Alessandro RodolicoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Psychiatric Clinic University Hospital 'Gaspare Rodolico', University of Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2196-0601
Oğulcan ÇırayDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mardin State Hospital, 47100 Artuklu, Mardin, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2864-613X
Declan G MurphyDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6664-7451
Mara ParelladaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, 28003 Madrid, Spain.
Celso ArangoDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, 28003 Madrid, Spain.
Stefan LeuchtDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 777394
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResponse to treatment, according to Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, is an easily interpretable outcome in clinical trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Yet, the CGI-I rating is sometimes reported as a continuous outcome, and converting it to dichotomous would allow meta-analysis to incorporate more evidence.

methodsClinical trials investigating medications for ASD and presenting both dichotomous and continuous CGI-I data were included. The number of patients with at least much improvement (CGI-I ≤ 2) were imputed from the CGI-I scale, assuming an underlying normal distribution of a latent continuous score using a primary threshold θ = 2.5 instead of θ = 2, which is the original cut-off in the CGI-I scale. The original and imputed values were used to calculate responder rates and odds ratios. The performance of the imputation method was investigated with a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), linear regression, Bland-Altman plots, and subgroup differences of summary estimates obtained from random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsData from 27 studies, 58 arms, and 1428 participants were used. The imputation method using the primary threshold (θ = 2.5) had good performance for the responder rates (CCC = 0.93 95% confidence intervals [0.86, 0.96]; β of linear regression = 1.04 [0.95, 1.13]; bias and limits of agreements = 4.32% [-8.1%, 16.74%]; no subgroup differences χ DISCUSSION: Assuming a normal distribution of the CGI-I scale, the number of responders could be imputed from the mean and standard deviation and used in meta-analysis. Due to the wide limits of agreement of the imputation method, sensitivity analysis excluding studies with imputed values should be performed.

Indexed as

continuous outcomesdichotomous outcomesmeta-analysisresponse

Identifiers

PMID34356141
PMCPMC8305379

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.