Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40195271›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Development of Composite Index in Psychiatry Clinical Trial.

Haiqi Zhang, Shein-Chung Chow

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Haiqi ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, 2424 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. haiqi.zhang@duke.edu.
Shein-Chung ChowDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, 2424 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In psychiatry clinical trials, a validated instrument (or questionnaire) which consists of a number of questions (or items) is often used for evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a test treatment under investigation. This approach based on rating scales for evaluation of safety and efficacy of a test treatment under study, however, has been criticized of being subjective. To overcome the problem, the use of a composite index which combines the subjective rating scales and objective functional magnetic resonance imaging is proposed. For this purpose, statistical methods for development of composite index are derived. The proposed composite index is evaluated both theoretically and via extensive clinical simulation studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicMental DisordersPsychiatryHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingSurveys and QuestionnairesFunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)Rating scalesSubscaleTotal score

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.