Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

Findings 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.

AIMS

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

METHOD

Trials 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.

RESULTS

Thirty-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%).

CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework.

RESULTS

A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues.

CONCLUSION

While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).

METHODS

The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.

DISCUSSION

SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Gamification: a Novel Approach to Mental Health Promotion

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gamification has emerged as a novel technique for improving mental health and enhancing treatment effectiveness. This paper provides an overview of gamification approaches to mental health intervention, identifies factors that may be related to variations in treatment effectiveness, and discusses possible strategies for tailoring gamified interventions to clients' needs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has documented the potential of gamified mental health interventions for bolstering mental wellness and mitigating psychological symptoms. However, their effectiveness may vary depending on study design-related factors and gender-specific considerations. Literature reviews have also identified yet-to-be resolved issues surrounding the possible strengths and weaknesses of the personalization versus standardization of gamification, as well as the potential benefits of gamification for increasing engagement versus the potential risks of over-engagement and behavioral addiction to gamified components. This review highlights the need for careful planning and execution of gamified mental health interventions to optimize their effectiveness and suitability for meeting clients' individual needs and preferences.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made.

METHODS

One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations.

RESULTS

We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates.

DISCUSSION

People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials

OBJECTIVES

Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%).

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials.

CONCLUSION

With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

The impact of music, play, and pet therapies in managing pain and anxiety in paediatric patients in hospital: a rapid systematic review

Background

Hospitalized children face pain and anxiety associated with the environment and procedures.

Objective

This review aimed to assess the impact of music, play, pet and art therapies on pain and anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients. RCTs assessing the impact of music, play, pet, and/or art therapies on pain and/or anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients were eligible.

Methods

Database searching and citation screening was completed to identify studies. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize study findings and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Of the 761 documents identified, 29 were included spanning music (n = 15), play (n = 12), and pet (n = 3) therapies.

Results

A high certainty of evidence supported play in reducing pain and moderate certainty for music and pet. A moderate certainty of evidence supported music and play in reducing anxiety.

Conclusion

Complementary therapies utilized alongside conventional medical treatment may mitigate pain and anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

Outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported in randomised controlled trials of anxiety disorder treatments in children and adolescents: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent and persistent mental health conditions worldwide affecting between 10% and 20% of children and adolescents. Despite the high prevalence of paediatric AD, there is limited understanding of which treatments work best. Outcome heterogeneity across paediatric mental health trials has been a significant factor in hindering the ability to compare results and assess the efficacy of such trials. This scoping review will help to identify and synthesise the outcomes reported in paediatric AD trials to date.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, a comprehensive electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL) strategy will be applied to identify articles examining interventions for children diagnosed with an AD. Articles will be eligible for inclusion if they assess at least one AD intervention (eg, psychological), in children 4-18 years of age inclusive. Initial title and abstract screening will be completed by two trained reviewers independently and in duplicate. Full-text screening of each included article will be completed independently and in duplicate by two of three trained reviewers. Identified outcomes will be mapped to a standard outcome taxonomy developed for core outcome sets. Trial and outcome characteristics will be synthesised using quantitative metrics (counts and frequencies).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this is a scoping review of the literature and patient information or records were not accessed, institutional ethics approval was not required. Results of this scoping review will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers inclusive of trialists and other stakeholders invested in outcome selection, measurement and reporting in paediatric AD trials. In addition, scoping review results will inform the development of a Core Outcome Set for paediatric AD trials-a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured across trials in an area of health, without precluding the inclusion of other outcomes.

Revisiting the theoretical and methodological foundations of depression measurement

Depressive disorders are among the leading causes of global disease burden, but there has been limited progress in understanding the causes and treatments for these disorders. In this Perspective, we suggest that such progress crucially depends on our ability to measure depression. We review the many problems with depression measurement, including limited evidence of validity and reliability. These issues raise grave concerns about common uses of depression measures, such as diagnosis or tracking treatment progress. We argue that shortcomings arise because depression measurement rests on shaky methodological and theoretical foundations. Moving forward, we need to break with the field's tradition that has, for decades, divorced theories about depression from how we measure it. Instead, we suggest that epistemic iteration, an iterative exchange between theory and measurement, provides a crucial avenue for depression measurement to progress.

Is Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Ready for Clinical Use as a Treatment Tool for Mental Health Targets in Children and Youth?

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation tool with potential for broad application in individuals with neuropsychiatric conditions. As in adults, most rTMS research in youth has focused on treatment-resistant depression. A limited number of rTMS studies have also been conducted in children and youth with primary diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Tourette's syndrome. Across the available rTMS literature, rTMS appears to be well tolerated with few adverse effects reported when applied to child and youth research samples. However, the potential efficacy of rTMS treatment for a variety of targets in children and youth remains unclear, due in part to limitations of the current literature, including studies using diverse protocols, potential for bias in existing clinical trial designs, variability in the research samples, and the use of heterogenous outcome measures. While rTMS is unlikely to take the place of more accessible treatments (e.g., psychopharmacological, psychosocial, psychotherapeutic), rTMS may provide a valuable alternative treatment option, particularly for those individuals where conventional treatments are inaccessible, poorly tolerated, or ineffective. A more robust body of well-designed, controlled trials, is needed in order to clarify rTMS treatment efficacy across relevant neuropsychiatric conditions, optimize treatment protocols, and meet the critical need for novel mental health interventions in children and youth.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of major depressive disorder in older adults: protocol for a methodological review

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorder (MDD or depression) is prevalent among adults aged 65 years and older. The effectiveness and safety of interventions used to treat depression is often assessed through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, heterogeneity in the selection, measurement and reporting of outcomes in RCTs renders comparisons between trial results, interpretability and generalisability of findings challenging. There is presently no core outcome set (COS) for use in RCTs that assess interventions for older adults with MDD. We will conduct a methodological review of the literature for outcomes reported in trials for adults 65 years and older with depression to assess the heterogeneity of outcome measures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RCTs evaluating pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or any other treatment intervention for older adults with MDD published in the last 10 years will be located using electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction of trials eligible for inclusion independently and in duplicate. Outcomes will be synthesised and mapped to core outcome-domain frameworks. We will summarise characteristics associated with trials and outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We hope that findings from our methodological review will reduce variability in outcome selection, measurement and reporting and facilitate the development of a COS for older adults with MDD. Our review will also inform evidence synthesis efforts in identifying the best treatment practices for this clinical population. Ethics approval is not required, as this study is a literature review.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021244753.