An assessment of the informativeness of clinical trials in digital mental health.

Bridianne O'Dea, Sally Rooke, Eliza-Rose Gordon, Fergus L Lyons, Bojana Vilus, Neelesh Paravastu, Philip J Batterham

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Npj mental health research, 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

7 authors.

Bridianne O'DeaFlinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia. bridianne.odea@flinders.edu.au.

Sally RookeBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Eliza-Rose GordonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Fergus L LyonsBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Bojana VilusBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Neelesh ParavastuBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Philip J BatterhamBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1197249Wellcome Trust

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials in digital mental health have grown rapidly, yet little research has examined their informativeness. This study assessed the proportions of recent trials that met indicators of informativeness and explored related factors. Using stratified sampling from five trial registries, we randomly selected 25% (N = 152) of recent trials for depression, anxiety, and psychosis in high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Each trial was evaluated against 17 established indicators. On average, trials met only half of these (M = 8.9, SD = 4.57, range 2-17). Just 5.3% (n = 8) met all indicators, with methodological criteria more often satisfied than those related to ethical, equitable, or open research practices. Informativeness did not differ by disorder or region but was higher where trial documentation and reporting were more accessible, with notable variation across registries. Findings highlight that many digital mental health trials may lack value for stakeholders, underscoring the need to prioritise informativeness and improve registry reporting.

Identifiers

PMID41407885

DOI10.1038/s44184-025-00177-z

PMCPMC12711929

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.