SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2024
The analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health trials: a methodological systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of a single primary outcome in randomised trials can be difficult, especially in mental health where interventions may be complex and target several outcomes simultaneously. We carried out a systematic review to assess the quality of the analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health RCTs, comparing approaches with current CONSORT and other regulatory guidance.
methodsThe review included all late-stage mental health trials published between 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020 in 9 leading medical and mental health journals. Pilot and feasibility trials, non-randomised trials, and early phase trials were excluded. The total number of primary, secondary and other outcomes was recorded, as was any strategy used to incorporate multiple primary outcomes in the primary analysis.
resultsThere were 147 included mental health trials. Most trials (101/147) followed CONSORT guidance by specifying a single primary outcome with other outcomes defined as secondary and analysed in separate statistical analyses, although a minority (10/147) did not specify any outcomes as primary. Where multiple primary outcomes were specified (33/147), most (26/33) did not correct for multiplicity, contradicting regulatory guidance. The median number of clinical outcomes reported across studies was 8 (IQR 5-11 ).
conclusionsMost trials are correctly following CONSORT guidance. However, there was little consideration given to multiplicity or correlation between outcomes even where multiple primary outcomes were stated. Trials should correct for multiplicity when multiple primary outcomes are specified or describe some other strategy to address the multiplicity. Overall, very few mental health trials are taking advantage of multiple outcome strategies in the primary analysis, especially more complex strategies such as multivariate modelling. More work is required to show these exist, aid interpretation, increase efficiency and are easily implemented. REGISTRATION: Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 11th January 2023 (CRD42023382274).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.