Jonathan A Shaffer1, Ian M Kronish2, Louise Falzon2, Ying Kuen Cheung3, Karina W Davidson2,4. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO. 2. Department of Medicine, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 4. Value Institute, New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
Abstract
Background: Single-patient, multiple cross-over designs (N-of-1 or single-case randomized clinical trials) with systematic data collection on treatment effects may be useful for increasing the precision of treatments in health psychology. Purposes: To assess the quality of the methods and statistics, describe interventions and outcomes, and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effect of health psychology N-of-1 trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of N-of-1 trials from electronic database inception through June 1, 2015. Potentially relevant articles were identified by searching the biomedical electronic databases Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, all six databases in the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings, dissertations, ongoing studies, Open Grey, and the New York Academy's Grey Literature Report. Studies were included if they had health behavior or psychological outcomes and the order of interventions was randomized. We abstracted study characteristics and analytic methods and used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for reporting N-of-1 trials as a quality checklist. Results: Fifty-four N-of-1 trial publications composed of 1,193 participants were included. Less than half of these (36%) reported adequate information to calculate the heterogeneity of treatment effect. Nearly all (90%) provided some quantitative information to determine the superior treatment; 79% used an a priori statistical cutoff, 12% used a graph, and 10% used a combination. Conclusions: N-of-1 randomized trials could be the next major advance in health psychology for precision therapeutics. However, they must be conducted with more methodologic and statistical rigor and must be transparently and fully reported.
Background: Single-patient, multiple cross-over designs (N-of-1 or single-case randomized clinical trials) with systematic data collection on treatment effects may be useful for increasing the precision of treatments in health psychology. Purposes: To assess the quality of the methods and statistics, describe interventions and outcomes, and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effect of health psychology N-of-1 trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of N-of-1 trials from electronic database inception through June 1, 2015. Potentially relevant articles were identified by searching the biomedical electronic databases Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, all six databases in the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings, dissertations, ongoing studies, Open Grey, and the New York Academy's Grey Literature Report. Studies were included if they had health behavior or psychological outcomes and the order of interventions was randomized. We abstracted study characteristics and analytic methods and used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for reporting N-of-1 trials as a quality checklist. Results: Fifty-four N-of-1 trial publications composed of 1,193 participants were included. Less than half of these (36%) reported adequate information to calculate the heterogeneity of treatment effect. Nearly all (90%) provided some quantitative information to determine the superior treatment; 79% used an a priori statistical cutoff, 12% used a graph, and 10% used a combination. Conclusions: N-of-1 randomized trials could be the next major advance in health psychology for precision therapeutics. However, they must be conducted with more methodologic and statistical rigor and must be transparently and fully reported.
Authors: Sohrab Saeb; Mi Zhang; Christopher J Karr; Stephen M Schueller; Marya E Corden; Konrad P Kording; David C Mohr Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel; Susan M Czajkowski; Rocco A Paluch; Mariola Moeyaert; Karina W Davidson Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Karina W Davidson; Michael Silverstein; Ken Cheung; Rocco A Paluch; Leonard H Epstein Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Mark Jennings; Aoife Guilfoyle; James Green; Yvonne Cleary; Rosemary Joan Gowran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ying Kuen Cheung; Dallas Wood; Kangkang Zhang; Ty A Ridenour; Lilly Derby; Tara St Onge; Naihua Duan; Joan Duer-Hefele; Karina W Davidson; Ian Kronish; Nathalie Moise Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 2.692