PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6509424

Methodological guidelines for reading drug-evaluation research.

P R King
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The present paper discusses methodological issues in psychopharmacological research. The intention is to provide readers of drug-evaluation research with a set of basic guidelines that will assist them to critically evaluate the investigations they encounter in the psychiatric literature. This paper describes the underlying rationale and basic principles associated with applying statistical analyses to drug-evaluation research data, and also addresses 11 additional methodological issues: specification of the research sample with respect to descriptive variables, diagnostic criteria, reliability of the diagnosis, the control group, random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions, blindness, subject attrition, treatment complications and side effects, the power of statistical tests, multivariate statistical analysis, and the reliability of the dependent variable. Evidence is presented to support the premise that there is a need to read drug-evaluation research critically.

Explore related subjects

Double-Blind MethodDrug EvaluationHumansMental DisordersPsychopharmacologyRandom AllocationStatistics as TopicJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P R King. 1984. Methodological guidelines for reading drug-evaluation research.. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674378402900706

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Redefining response in overactive bladder syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three potential definitions of treatment response in overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome, based on the International Continence Society (ICS) definition of OAB, using pooled data from two large clinical trials of the antimuscarinic agent solifenacin succinate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As the ICS definition of OAB does not rely on urodynamic observations for a diagnosis, the use of composite endpoints, such as in the definitions examined here, might provide a more relevant measure of patient benefits. Each definition was tested to assess the impact of pharmacotherapy, comparing treatment response rates based on composite endpoints. Responder definitions were validated based on the impact on quality of life (QoL). Pooled data from two 12-week multinational, multicentre, double-blind randomized studies of solifenacin, a once-daily oral antimuscarinic for treating OAB symptoms, were used for this analysis. Based on the symptom data from these studies (episodes of urgency, incontinence, nocturia and voiding frequency per 24 h), response was defined as being: (i) a reduction by half or more in all baseline symptoms; (ii) a reduction by half or more in urgency and at least one other symptom; or (iii) resolution of urgency episodes and at least one other symptom. Health-related QoL changes were recorded using the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). RESULTS: Solifenacin at 5 mg or 10 mg once daily resulted in significantly higher response rates than with placebo, irrespective of the definition of a responder (P < or = 0.001). When assessing the most challenging definition of response (resolution of urgency and at least one other symptom), solifenacin at 5 mg and 10 mg resulted in 20% and 25% of patients, respectively, meeting the response criteria, vs 12% of placebo-treated patients (P < or = 0.001 for both solifenacin doses). For all three definitions of response, responders showed greater improvements in all KHQ domains than did nonresponders, and the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two strictest definitions of response (halving or more in all baseline symptoms or resolution of urgency and more than one other symptom) appeared to capture QoL changes most effectively. Establishing the most appropriate definition to assess treatment-related changes in OAB will require further investigation, but it is clear from this analysis that composite clinical endpoints, based on the ICS definition of OAB, are a valid approach for assessing the effect of treatments for OAB.

Double-Blind Method↗