Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In general, a total HAM-D-17 score of 7 or less is accepted as an indicator of remission [11]. It has been reported an internal consistency of 0.83 [12], inter-rater reliability of 0.97 [13], and test-retest reliability of 0.81 [14], showing adequate reliability.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, a total HAM-D-17 score of 7 or less is accepted as an indicator of remission [11]. It has been reported an internal consistency of 0.83 [12], inter-rater reliability of 0.97 [13], and test-retest reliability of 0.81 [14], showing adequate reliability.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two Becker et al [21, 22] CTs used to demonstrate the practicality of small Ns in CTs [1], compared to other published AD CTs, attained relatively tight standard deviations for patient ratings which standard deviations were further reduced by averaging three observations to obtain each data point entered into the data analysis [23]. As reported, but not discussed in detail in Becker [1], recently a series of articles in multi-center studies of depression, documented the presence of highly consequential inaccuracies in evaluations of research subjects completed by over 50% of trained research raters [2–4, 5052]. As a result of the prevalent inaccuracies and imprecision in ratings in which human judgments generate the data obtained from patient observations, it is our view that sponsors of CTs that use rating scales for AD, depression, neurological conditions, and so forth, must assure that systematic errors, bias, carelessness during periods of observation, inattention to the study protocol and imprecision in ratings do not interfere with or undermine findings of statistical significant differences for the investigational treatment.…”
Section: Reliable Evaluations Of Research Subjectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Demitrack et al [35] found excessive variance among sites in large multisite studies. Kobak et al [36, 37] and Targum [38] showed beneficial effects of more intensive training of investigators at research sites. On the other hand, Demitrack et al [35] and Kobak et al [37] found that, for some prospective raters, extended training did not improve the reliability of their performances necessitating their exclusion from participation in CT research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%