Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology reports2024
Feasibility of remote interviews in assessing disease severity in patients with major depressive disorder: A pilot study.
Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of remote interviews in assessing disease severity in patients with major depressive disorder: A pilot study.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2024Trial
- A qualitative investigation of the Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale: discrepancies in rater perceptions and data trends in remote assessments of rapid-acting antidepressants in treatment resistant depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimInterview quality is an important factor in the success of clinical trials for major depressive disorder (MDD). There is a substantial need to establish a reliable, remote clinical assessment interview system that can replace traditional in-person interviews.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, unblinded, prospective, cross-sectional study to assess the reliability of remote interviews in patients with MDD (UMIN000041839). Eligible patients with MDD underwent remote and in-person sessions of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) assessment performed by different raters within 28 days of providing consent. Patients were randomized to a group first assessed using in-person interviews and secondarily using remote interviews (in-person-first group) or a group first assessed by remote interviews and secondarily using in-person interviews (remote-first group). Nineteen trained people (15 clinical psychologists, 3 nurses, and 1 clinical laboratory technologist) performed interviews.
resultsOf 59 patients (in-person-first group, n = 32; remote-first group, n = 27) who completed both remote and in-person interviews, 51% (n = 30) were women; the mean age was 41.6 years (range, 21-64 years). There was a strong association between remote and in-person MADRS scores (r = 0.891, kappa = 0.901). An overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.886 (95% confidence interval, 0.877-0.952) indicated good consistency between MADRS scores in remote and in-person interviews. The ICC decreased as the severity of depression increased.
conclusionOur results suggest remote interviews are a feasible alternative option to in-person interviews in assessing symptom severity in MDD patients and could promote clinical trials in Japan.
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.