Examination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Examination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials.
Authors:	Spring, Bonnie, Pagoto, Sherry, Knatterud, Genell, Kozak, Andrea, Hedeker, Donald
Source:	Journal of Clinical Psychology. Jan2007, Vol. 63 Issue 1, p53-71. 19p. 7 Charts.
Subjects:	Behaviorism (Psychology), Behavioral assessment, Clinical trials, Systematic reviews, Clinical psychology, Experimental design, Mental health services, Clinical health psychology, Behavioral medicine
Abstract:	Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 63: 53–71, 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Clinical Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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

Description
Abstract:	Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 63: 53–71, 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00219762
DOI:	10.1002/jclp.20334