ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2024
Issues and Solutions in Psychiatric Clinical Trial with Case Studies.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic resulted in a major increase in depression and anxiety disorders worldwide, which increased the demand for mental health services. However, clinical interventions for treating mental disorders are currently insufficient to meet this growing demand. There is an urgent need to conduct scientific and standardized clinical research that are consistent with the features of mental disorders in order to deliver more effective and safer therapies in the clinic. Our study aimed to expose the challenges, complexities of study design, ethical issues, sample selection, and efficacy evaluation in clinical research for mental disorders. The reliance on subjective symptom presentation and rating scales for diagnosing mental diseases was discovered, emphasizing the lack of clear biological standards, which hampers the construction of rigorous research criteria. We underlined the possibility of psychotherapy in efficacy evaluation alongside medication treatment, proposing for a multidisciplinary approach comprising psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and statisticians. To comprehend mental disorders progression, we recommend the development of artificial intelligence integrated evaluation tools, the use of precise biomarkers, and the strengthening of longitudinal designs. In addition, we advocate for international collaboration to diversity samples and increase the dependability of findings, with the goal of improving clinical research quality in mental disorders through sample representativeness, accurate medical history gathering, and adherence to ethical principles.
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.