Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450491›Full record

ReviewBJPsych open2024

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression.

Myanca Rodrigues, Anna Oprea, Keily Johnson, Alexander Dufort, Nitika Sanger, Pegah Ghiassi, Stephanie Sanger, Balpreet Panesar, Alessia D'Elia, Sameer Parpia and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Myanca RodriguesHealth Research Methodology Graduate Program, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Canada.
Anna OpreaLife Sciences Undergraduate Program, School of Interdisciplinary Science, McMaster University, Canada.
Keily JohnsonPsychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Science, McMaster University, Canada.
Alexander DufortDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Canada.
Nitika SangerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Canada.
Pegah GhiassiDelivery Management Office, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Canada.
Stephanie SangerHealth Sciences Library, McMaster University, Canada.
Balpreet PanesarNeuroscience Graduate Program, McMaster University, Canada; and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5492-3615
Alessia D'EliaNeuroscience Graduate Program, McMaster University, Canada; and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sameer ParpiaDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Canada; and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Canada.
Zainab SamaanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Canada; and Mood Disorders Program, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-9361
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Canada; Population Health Research Institute, Ontario, Canada; and Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR PJT-156306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFindings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded.

aimsOur study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

methodTrials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable.

resultsThirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%).

conclusionsThere is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.

Indexed as

clinical outcome measuresDepressive disordersolder adultsoutcome reportingrandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID38450491
PMCPMC10951853

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.