OBJECTIVE: Independent evaluators (IE) are used widely in clinical trials to make unbiased determinations of treatment response. By virtue of being kept blind to treatment condition, however, IEs are also kept unaware of many pertinent clinical details that are relevant for decisions about clinical improvement. In this study, agreement among raters (children, parents, therapists, and IEs) about treatment response over the course of a 14-week clinical trial for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was examined in order to determine the utility of nonblind clinician and patient ratings of treatment response. METHOD: Participants were 71 youth (mean age = 12.2 years; 63.4% female) with a primary diagnosis of OCD and their parents participating in a psychotherapy trial. IEs provided response ratings (Clinician's Global Impressions-Improvement Scale; CGI-I) at Weeks 4, 8, and 14, and therapists, children, and parents completed independent CGI-I ratings at Weeks 2, 4, 8, and 14. RESULTS: Nonlinear mixed models revealed differences in rating parties, with therapists and IEs slower to rate treatment improvement compared with children and parents, and growth curve models suggested that therapists and IEs produced generally consistent ratings. In addition, no evidence was found for an Evaluator × Treatment interaction, indicating that raters displayed these differences consistently across both active and placebo conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Youth and parents may be able to provide accurate ratings of global improvement; nonblinded treating clinicians (with training in research-oriented assessment) can offer global improvement ratings commensurate with blinded IEs. Findings suggest that alternatives (or additions) to the blinded-IE model may be appropriate for assessing global improvement, especially with the growing emphasis on dissemination and effectiveness trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Independent evaluators (IE) are used widely in clinical trials to make unbiased determinations of treatment response. By virtue of being kept blind to treatment condition, however, IEs are also kept unaware of many pertinent clinical details that are relevant for decisions about clinical improvement. In this study, agreement among raters (children, parents, therapists, and IEs) about treatment response over the course of a 14-week clinical trial for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was examined in order to determine the utility of nonblind clinician and patient ratings of treatment response. METHOD:Participants were 71 youth (mean age = 12.2 years; 63.4% female) with a primary diagnosis of OCD and their parents participating in a psychotherapy trial. IEs provided response ratings (Clinician's Global Impressions-Improvement Scale; CGI-I) at Weeks 4, 8, and 14, and therapists, children, and parents completed independent CGI-I ratings at Weeks 2, 4, 8, and 14. RESULTS: Nonlinear mixed models revealed differences in rating parties, with therapists and IEs slower to rate treatment improvement compared with children and parents, and growth curve models suggested that therapists and IEs produced generally consistent ratings. In addition, no evidence was found for an Evaluator × Treatment interaction, indicating that raters displayed these differences consistently across both active and placebo conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Youth and parents may be able to provide accurate ratings of global improvement; nonblinded treating clinicians (with training in research-oriented assessment) can offer global improvement ratings commensurate with blinded IEs. Findings suggest that alternatives (or additions) to the blinded-IE model may be appropriate for assessing global improvement, especially with the growing emphasis on dissemination and effectiveness trials.
Authors: Andres De Los Reyes; Eric A Youngstrom; Anna J Swan; Jennifer K Youngstrom; Norah C Feeny; Robert L Findling Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Jonathan Rabinowitz; Stephen Z Levine; Rossella Medori; Petrus Oosthuizen; Liezl Koen; Robin Emsley Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: David Roll; Susan E Ray; Sue M Marcus; Vincent Passarelli; Roy Money; David H Barlow; Scott W Woods; M Katherine Shear; Jack M Gorman Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: John S March; Susan Silva; Stephen Petrycki; John Curry; Karen Wells; John Fairbank; Barbara Burns; Marisa Domino; Steven McNulty; Benedetto Vitiello; Joanne Severe Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-10
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joseph F McGuire; Nicole E Caporino; Sophie A Palitz; Philip C Kendall; Anne Marie Albano; Golda S Ginsburg; Boris Birmaher; John T Walkup; John Piacentini Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Joseph F McGuire; Danielle Ung; Robert R Selles; Omar Rahman; Adam B Lewin; Tanya K Murphy; Eric A Storch Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Joseph F McGuire; Daniel A Geller; Tanya K Murphy; Brent J Small; Arianna Unger; Sabine Wilhelm; Eric A Storch Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2018-06-22
Authors: Tara S Peris; Scott N Compton; Philip C Kendall; Boris Birmaher; Joel Sherrill; John March; Elizabeth Gosch; Golda Ginsburg; Moira Rynn; James T McCracken; Courtney P Keeton; Dara Sakolsky; Cynthia Suveg; Sasha Aschenbrand; Daniel Almirall; Satish Iyengar; John T Walkup; Anne Marie Albano; John Piacentini Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-12-08
Authors: Anne Marie Albano; Jonathan S Comer; Scott N Compton; John Piacentini; Philip C Kendall; Boris Birmaher; John T Walkup; Golda S Ginsburg; Moira A Rynn; James McCracken; Courtney Keeton; Dara J Sakolsky; Joel T Sherrill Journal: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health Date: 2017-12-05
Authors: Andrew G Guzick; Alicia W Leong; Emily M Dickinson; Sophie C Schneider; Katherine Zopatti; Jamie Manis; Allison C Meinert; Alexandra M Barth; Mayra Perez; Daphne M Campo; Saira A Weinzimmer; Sandra L Cepeda; David Mathai; Asim Shah; Wayne K Goodman; Alison Salloum; Sarah Kennedy; Jill Ehrenreich-May; Eric A Storch Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Fabian Lenhard; Sarah Vigerland; Erik Andersson; Christian Rück; David Mataix-Cols; Ulrika Thulin; Brjánn Ljótsson; Eva Serlachius Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240