OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to review the reported methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift in clinical trials of treatments for depressive disorders. METHOD: Two psychiatrists independently identified all original reports of clinical trials relevant to depressive disorders published between 1996 and 2000 in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry. Reported methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift were systematically summarized. RESULTS: Sixty-three original papers met criteria for inclusion. Only 11 (17%) of the studies reported the number of raters. Only two (9%) of the 22 multicenter and four (10%) of the 41 single-center trials documented rater training. Only nine (22%) of the single-center trials and three (14%) of the multicenter trials reported interrater reliability, despite a median number of five raters (range=2-20). Only three (5%) of the 63 articles reported rater drift. CONCLUSIONS: Few published reports of clinical trials of treatments for depressive disorders document adequately the number of raters, rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to review the reported methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift in clinical trials of treatments for depressive disorders. METHOD: Two psychiatrists independently identified all original reports of clinical trials relevant to depressive disorders published between 1996 and 2000 in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry. Reported methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift were systematically summarized. RESULTS: Sixty-three original papers met criteria for inclusion. Only 11 (17%) of the studies reported the number of raters. Only two (9%) of the 22 multicenter and four (10%) of the 41 single-center trials documented rater training. Only nine (22%) of the single-center trials and three (14%) of the multicenter trials reported interrater reliability, despite a median number of five raters (range=2-20). Only three (5%) of the 63 articles reported rater drift. CONCLUSIONS: Few published reports of clinical trials of treatments for depressive disorders document adequately the number of raters, rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift.
Authors: G Rostaminia; J Manonai; E Leclaire; F Omoumi; M Marchiorlatti; L H Quiroz; S A Shobeiri Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Patricia Marino; Herbert C Schulberg; Ariel G Gildengers; Benoit H Mulsant; Martha Sajatovic; Laszlo Gyulai; Rayan K Aljurdi; Laurie Davan Evans; Samprit Banerjee; Ruben C Gur; Robert C Young Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Jules Rosen; Benoit H Mulsant; Patricia Marino; Christopher Groening; Robert C Young; Debra Fox Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2008-08-30 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Sheila Cox Sullivan; Melinda M Bopp; Paula K Roberson; Shelly Lensing; Dennis H Sullivan Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 5.717