Winfried Rief1, Chris Burton, Lisbeth Frostholm, Peter Henningsen, Maria Kleinstäuber, Willem J Kop, Bernd Löwe, Alexandra Martin, Ulrik Malt, Judith Rosmalen, Andreas Schröder, Meike Shedden-Mora, Anne Toussaint, Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis. 1. From the Department of Psychology (Rief), Philipps University, Marburg, Germany; University of Aberdeen (Burton), Aberdeen, UK; University of Aarhus (Frostholm, Schröder), Aarhus, Denmark; Technical University of Munich (Henningsen), München, Germany; University of Marburg (Kleinstäuber), Marburg, Germany; Tilburg University (Kop, van der Feltz-Cornelis), Tilburg, the Netherlands; University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf (Löwe, Shedden-Mora, Toussaint), Hamburg, Germany; University of Wuppertal (Martin), Wuppertal, Germany; University of Oslo (Malt), Oslo, Norway; and University of Groningen (Rosmalen), Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The harmonization of core outcome domains in clinical trials facilitates comparison and pooling of data, and simplifies the preparation and review of research projects and comparison of risks and benefits of treatments. Therefore, we provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials on the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. METHODS: The European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders group of more than 20 experts in the field met twice in Hamburg to discuss issues of assessment and intervention research in somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. The consensus meetings identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials evaluating treatments for somatic symptom disorder and associated functional somatic syndromes. RESULTS: The following core domains should be considered when defining ascertainment methods in clinical trials: a) classification of somatic symptom disorder/bodily distress disorder, associated functional somatic syndromes, and comorbid mental disorders (using structured clinical interviews), duration of symptoms, medical morbidity, and prior treatments; b) location, intensity, and interference of somatic symptoms; c) associated psychobehavioral features and biological markers; d) illness consequences (quality of life, disability, health care utilization, health care costs; e) global improvement and treatment satisfaction; and f) unwanted negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed criteria are intended to improve synergies of clinical trials and to facilitate decision making when comparing different treatment approaches. These recommendations should not result in inflexible guidelines, but increase consistency across investigations in this field.
OBJECTIVE: The harmonization of core outcome domains in clinical trials facilitates comparison and pooling of data, and simplifies the preparation and review of research projects and comparison of risks and benefits of treatments. Therefore, we provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials on the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. METHODS: The European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders group of more than 20 experts in the field met twice in Hamburg to discuss issues of assessment and intervention research in somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. The consensus meetings identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials evaluating treatments for somatic symptom disorder and associated functional somatic syndromes. RESULTS: The following core domains should be considered when defining ascertainment methods in clinical trials: a) classification of somatic symptom disorder/bodily distress disorder, associated functional somatic syndromes, and comorbid mental disorders (using structured clinical interviews), duration of symptoms, medical morbidity, and prior treatments; b) location, intensity, and interference of somatic symptoms; c) associated psychobehavioral features and biological markers; d) illness consequences (quality of life, disability, health care utilization, health care costs; e) global improvement and treatment satisfaction; and f) unwanted negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed criteria are intended to improve synergies of clinical trials and to facilitate decision making when comparing different treatment approaches. These recommendations should not result in inflexible guidelines, but increase consistency across investigations in this field.
Authors: Judith G M Rosmalen; Anne van Gils; M Angélica Acevedo Mesa; Robert A Schoevers; Rei Monden; Denise J C Hanssen Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2019-11-28
Authors: Marie Weinreich Petersen; Marianne Rosendal; Eva Ørnbøl; Per Fink; Torben Jørgensen; Thomas Meinertz Dantoft; Andreas Schröder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Iman Elfeddali; Ursula Werneke; Ulrik F Malt; Omer Van den Bergh; Rainer Schaefert; Willem J Kop; Antonio Lobo; Michael Sharpe; Wolfgang Söllner; Bernd Löwe Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Aki Vuokko; Kirsi Karvala; Hille Suojalehto; Harri Lindholm; Sanna Selinheimo; Marja Heinonen-Guzejev; Sami Leppämäki; Sebastian Cederström; Christer Hublin; Katinka Tuisku; Markku Sainio Journal: Saf Health Work Date: 2019-06-14
Authors: Meike Shedden-Mora; Anne Toussaint; Bernd Löwe; Viola Andresen; Omer Van den Bergh; Tobias B Huber; Olaf von dem Knesebeck; Ansgar W Lohse; Yvonne Nestoriuc; Gudrun Schneider; Stefan W Schneider; Christoph Schramm; Sonja Ständer; Eik Vettorazzi; Antonia Zapf Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 2.692