Assessing uptake of the core outcome set in anxiety disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessing uptake of the core outcome set in anxiety disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Duncan, Jacob (AUTHOR), Elfar, Annes (AUTHOR), Magana, Kimberly (AUTHOR), Jones, Garrett (AUTHOR), Ward, Shaelyn (AUTHOR), Magee, Trevor (AUTHOR), Modi, Jay (AUTHOR), Fitzgerald, Kyle (AUTHOR), Hughes, Griffin (AUTHOR), Ford, Alicia Ito (AUTHOR), Vassar, Matt (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Quality of Life Research. Aug2024, Vol. 33 Issue 8, p2275-2283. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Clinical trials, Generalized anxiety disorder, Drug side effects, Serotonin uptake inhibitors, Medical personnel, Pearson correlation (Statistics) |
| Abstract: | This article examines the use of a standardized set of outcomes, known as a Core Outcome Set (COS), in clinical trials for anxiety disorders. The study found that there was a decrease in reporting of outcome measures before the publication of the COS, but no significant change after. The most commonly measured outcomes were 'symptom burden' and 'functioning', while 'medication side effects' and 'absenteeism' were less frequently measured. The study also found that the continent and funding type of the trials had an impact on outcome measurement, with trials from Australia and those funded by industry reporting the highest percentage of COS outcomes. The lack of adherence to the COS leads to inconsistent outcomes across trials, making it difficult to compare treatments and make clinical decisions. Further research is needed to identify barriers to adherence and increase awareness of the importance of the COS. [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This article examines the use of a standardized set of outcomes, known as a Core Outcome Set (COS), in clinical trials for anxiety disorders. The study found that there was a decrease in reporting of outcome measures before the publication of the COS, but no significant change after. The most commonly measured outcomes were 'symptom burden' and 'functioning', while 'medication side effects' and 'absenteeism' were less frequently measured. The study also found that the continent and funding type of the trials had an impact on outcome measurement, with trials from Australia and those funded by industry reporting the highest percentage of COS outcomes. The lack of adherence to the COS leads to inconsistent outcomes across trials, making it difficult to compare treatments and make clinical decisions. Further research is needed to identify barriers to adherence and increase awareness of the importance of the COS. [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09629343 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11136-024-03697-x |
