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

. 2023 Mar 15 ; 325 () : 429-436. [epub] 20230110

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid36638966
Odkazy

PubMed 36638966
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2023.01.029
PII: S0165-0327(23)00041-1
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace