Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D)
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
35101520
DOI
10.1016/j.jad.2022.01.105
PII: S0165-0327(22)00114-8
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Careless ratings, Consistency of measurement, HAM-D17, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Inconsistent ratings, NEWMEDS,
- MeSH
- antidepresiva * terapeutické užití MeSH
- deprese * diagnóza MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- poruchy nálady farmakoterapie MeSH
- psychiatrické posuzovací škály MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Názvy látek
- antidepresiva * MeSH
BACKGROUND: Symptom manifestations in mood disorders can be subtle. Cumulatively, small imprecisions in measurement can limit our ability to measure treatment response accurately. Logical and statistical consistency checks between item responses (i.e., cross-sectionally) and across administrations (i.e., longitudinally) can contribute to improving measurement fidelity. METHODS: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert Working Group that assembled flags indicating consistency/inconsistency ratings for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17), a widely-used rating scale in studies of depression. Proposed flags were applied to assessments derived from the NEWMEDS data repository of 95,468 HAM-D administrations from 32 registration trials of antidepressant medications and to Monte Carlo-simulated data as a proxy for applying flags under conditions of known inconsistency. RESULTS: Two types of flags were derived: logical consistency checks and statistical outlier-response pattern checks. Almost thirty percent of the HAMD administrations had at least one logical scoring inconsistency flag. Seven percent had flags judged to suggest that a thorough review of rating is warranted. Almost 22% of the administrations had at least one statistical outlier flag and 7.9% had more than one. Most of the 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. Reviewing and addressing these flags may improve reliability and validity of clinical trial data.
Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan Israel
Emalex Biosciences Inc 330N Wabash Suite 3500 Chicago IL 60611 United States
Janssen Research and Development 3210 Merryfield Row San Diego CA 92121 United States
Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd Titusville NJ 08560 United States
Lundbeck A S Ottiliavej 9 2500 Valby Denmark
Signant Health Prague Czech Republic
SUNY Downstate Health Sciences Center 450 Clarkson Avenue MSC 1203 Brooklyn NY 11203 United States
Valis Bioscience 1426 Parker St Berkeley CA United States
VeraSci 3211 Shannon Road Suite 300 Durham NC 27707 United States
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org