Revised in adolescents with major depressive disorderThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article. This article has been published in Stallwood et al. (2021). Systematic review: The measurement properties of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised in adolescents with major depressive disorder.

There is an almost complete lack of sex-specific reporting of data in clinical trials for dementia drug therapies, and no sex-specific reporting of adverse events. Sex-specific reporting of data should be required in drug trials to increase research value and ultimately inform more tailored prescribing for older adults.

The Interactive Observation Scale for Psychiatric Inpatients (IOSPI) is characterized by the necessity of interaction between the rater and the patient during the evaluation process. The reliability, validity and factor structure of the IOSPI were evaluated by using a total of 186 sets of ratings accomplished by 2 nursing aides on 34 adult psychiatric inpatients submitted to weekly evaluations during the 3 first weeks of hospitalization. The patients were observed by the 2 nursing aides simultaneously during the morning shift (5 h). In the afternoon of the same day, they were interviewed by two psychiatrists who filled in separately the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Factor analysis of the 16 IOSPI items revealed 5 distinct clusters of items, which represented higher-order constructs of social interest, psychomotor agitation, psychoticism, neatness and irritability. It was found that the IOSPI has significant interrater reliability, estimated by an intraclass correlation coefficient of total score and factor score. The total scores of the IOSPI showed a significant correlation with the total scores of the BPRS, meeting the criteria of concurrent validity. The criteria of predictive validity were also met, since the patients who could be discharged presented IOSPI scores significantly lower than the patients who could not be discharged. In conclusion, the IOSPI met the requirements of an evaluation scale and can stimulate therapeutic attitudes of the nursing staff by its characteristics of interactive observation.

No abstract

Introduction: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has resulted in accurate prostate cancer localization and image-guided targeted sampling for biopsy. Despite its more recent uptake, knowledge gaps in interpretation and reporting exist. Our objective was to determine the need for an educational intervention among urology residents working with mpMRIs. Methods: We administered an anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire to a convenience sample of urology residents in U.S. and Canadian training programs. The survey included both open- and closed-ended questions employing a five-point Likert scale. It was designed to assess familiarity, exposure, experience, and comfort with interpretation of mpMRI. Results: Fifty-three surveys were completed by residents in postgraduate years (PGY) 1–5 and of these, only 12 (23%) reported any formal training in mpMRI interpretation. Most residents’ responses demonstrated significant experience with prostate biopsies, as well as familiarity with reviewing mpMRI for these patients. However, mean (± standard deviation) Likert responses suggested a relatively poor understanding the components of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 scoring for T2 weighted films (2.45±1.01), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) films (2.26±0.90), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) films (2.21±0.99). Similar disagreement scores were observed for questions around interpretation of the different functional techniques of MRI images. Residents reported strong interest (4.21±0.91) in learning opportunities to enhance their ability to interpret mpMRI. Conclusions: While mpMRI of the prostate is a tool frequently used by care teams in teaching centers to identify suspicious prostate cancer lesions, there remain knowledge gaps in the ability of trainees to interpret images and understand PI-RADS v2 scoring. Online modules were suggested to balance the needs of trainee education with the residency workflow.

No abstract

Background: Registry-based randomized controlled trials allow for outcome ascertainment using routine health data (RHD). While this method provides a potential solution to the rising cost and complexity of clinical trials, comparative analyses of outcome ascertainment by clinical end point committee (CEC) adjudication compared with RHD sources are sparse. Among cardiovascular trials, we set out to systematically compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and estimated randomized treatment effects ascertained from RHD versus traditional clinical evaluation and adjudication. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (1976 to August 2020) for studies where outcome ascertainment was performed by both RHD and CEC adjudication to compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and treatment effects. We derived ratios of hazard ratios to compare treatment effects from RHD and CEC adjudication. We pooled ratios of hazard ratios using an inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies (1988–2020; 32 156 patients) involving 10 randomized control trials compared outcome ascertainment with RHD and CEC in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease. There was a high degree of agreement and interrater reliability between CEC and RHD outcome determination for all-cause mortality (agreement percentage: 98.4%–100% and κ: 0.95–1.0) and cardiovascular mortality (agreement percentage: 97.8%–99.9% and κ: 0.66–0.99). For myocardial infarction, the κ values ranged from 0.67–0.98, and for stroke the values ranged from 0.52–0.89. In contrast, the κ value for peripheral artery disease was low (κ: 0.27). There was little difference in the randomized treatment effect derived from CEC and RHD ascertainment of events based on the ratios of hazard ratio, with pooled ratios of hazard ratios ranging from 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63–1.39) for cardiovascular mortality to 1.27 (95% CI, 0.67–2.41) for stroke. Conclusions: Clinical outcome ascertainment using retrospectively acquired RHD displayed high levels of agreement with CEC adjudication for identifying all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Importantly, cardiovascular treatment effects in randomized control trials determined from RHD and CEC resulted in similar point estimates. Overall, our review supports the use of RHD as a potential alternative source for clinical outcome ascertainment in cardiovascular trials. Validation studies with prospectively planned linkage are warranted.