• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A)

J. Rabinowitz, JBW. Williams, N. Hefting, A. Anderson, B. Brown, DJ. Fu, B. Kadriu, A. Kott, A. Mahableshwarkar, J. Sedway, D. Williamson, C. Yavorsky, NR. Schooler

. 2023 ; 325 (-) : 429-436. [pub] 20230110

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23003813

BACKGROUND: Mitigating rating inconsistency can improve measurement fidelity and detection of treatment response. METHODS: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert Working Group that developed consistency checks for ratings of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity of anxiety (CGIS) that are widely used in studies of mood and anxiety disorders. Flags were applied to 40,349 HAM-A administrations from 15 clinical trials and to Monte Carlo-simulated data as a proxy for applying flags under conditions of inconsistency. RESULTS: Thirty-three flags were derived these included logical consistency checks and statistical outlier-response pattern checks. Twenty-percent of the HAM-A administrations had at least one logical scoring inconsistency flag, 4 % had two or more. Twenty-six percent of the administrations had at least one statistical outlier flag and 11 % had two or more. Overall, 35 % of administrations had at least one flag of any type, 19 % had one and 16 % had 2 or more. Most of administrations in the Monte Carlo- simulated data raised multiple flags. LIMITATIONS: Flagged ratings may represent less-common presentations of administrations done correctly. Conclusions-Application of flags to clinical ratings may aid in detecting imprecise measurement. Flags can be used for monitoring of raters during an ongoing trial and as part of post-trial evaluation. Appling flags may improve reliability and validity of trial data.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23003813
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230425140911.0
007      
ta
008      
230418s2023 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.jad.2023.01.029 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36638966
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Rabinowitz, Jonathan $u Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Electronic address: jonathan.rabinowitz@biu.ac.il
245    10
$a Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) / $c J. Rabinowitz, JBW. Williams, N. Hefting, A. Anderson, B. Brown, DJ. Fu, B. Kadriu, A. Kott, A. Mahableshwarkar, J. Sedway, D. Williamson, C. Yavorsky, NR. Schooler
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Mitigating rating inconsistency can improve measurement fidelity and detection of treatment response. METHODS: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert Working Group that developed consistency checks for ratings of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity of anxiety (CGIS) that are widely used in studies of mood and anxiety disorders. Flags were applied to 40,349 HAM-A administrations from 15 clinical trials and to Monte Carlo-simulated data as a proxy for applying flags under conditions of inconsistency. RESULTS: Thirty-three flags were derived these included logical consistency checks and statistical outlier-response pattern checks. Twenty-percent of the HAM-A administrations had at least one logical scoring inconsistency flag, 4 % had two or more. Twenty-six percent of the administrations had at least one statistical outlier flag and 11 % had two or more. Overall, 35 % of administrations had at least one flag of any type, 19 % had one and 16 % had 2 or more. Most of administrations in the Monte Carlo- simulated data raised multiple flags. LIMITATIONS: Flagged ratings may represent less-common presentations of administrations done correctly. Conclusions-Application of flags to clinical ratings may aid in detecting imprecise measurement. Flags can be used for monitoring of raters during an ongoing trial and as part of post-trial evaluation. Appling flags may improve reliability and validity of trial data.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a psychiatrické posuzovací škály $7 D011569
650    12
$a úzkostné poruchy $x diagnóza $x farmakoterapie $7 D001008
650    _2
$a psychometrie $7 D011594
650    12
$a úzkost $7 D001007
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Williams, Janet B W $u Columbia University, Department of Psychiatry, c/o 2466 Westlake Ave N., #19, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
700    1_
$a Hefting, Nanco $u Lundbeck A/S, Ottiliavej 9, 2500 Valby, Denmark
700    1_
$a Anderson, Ariana $u UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, 760 Westwood Plaza, Ste. 28-224, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
700    1_
$a Brown, Brianne $u Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ 08560, USA
700    1_
$a Fu, Dong Jing $u Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ 08560, USA
700    1_
$a Kadriu, Bashkim $u Janssen Research & Development, 3210 Merryfield Row, San Diego, CA 92121, United States
700    1_
$a Kott, Alan $u Signant Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mahableshwarkar, Atul $u ARM Pharma Consulting, Deerfield, MI USA
700    1_
$a Sedway, Jan $u VeraSci, Durham, North, Carolina, USA
700    1_
$a Williamson, David $u Dept of Neurology & Psychiatry, U of South Alabama College of Medicine, Dept of Psychiatry & Health Behavior, Medical College of Georgia, USA
700    1_
$a Yavorsky, Christian $u Valis Bioscience, Berkely, CA, USA
700    1_
$a Schooler, Nina R $u SUNY Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, MSC 1203, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA
773    0_
$w MED00002501 $t Journal of affective disorders $x 1573-2517 $g Roč. 325, č. - (2023), s. 429-436
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638966 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230418 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230425140908 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1924469 $s 1190022
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 325 $c - $d 429-436 $e 20230110 $i 1573-2517 $m Journal of affective disorders $n J Affect Disord $x MED00002501
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230418

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace