Skip to main content
Download PDF

Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 20, Article number: 129 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.

Methods

RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as “fully reported”, “partially reported”, or “not reported” for each checklist item, as applicable.

Results

Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.

Conclusions

Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.

Peer Review reports

Background

Evidence-based health care is informed by randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the synthesis of their results in meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Inadequate reporting of clinical trials, including reporting of trial outcomes, remains a major challenge to evidence-based care [1, 2]. Outcomes are key trial components as they are the measured events that reflect the effect of an intervention on a participant (e.g., change in symptom severity, remission status) [3]. Empirical studies have shown that among the outcomes that are reported in trials, their descriptions often lack information regarding their selection, definition, measurement, and analysis [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Insufficiencies in the comprehensiveness of trial outcome reporting (i.e., the reporting provides enough detail to ensure full understanding of the outcome) not only limits the reproducibility and critical appraisal of findings, but also impedes research usability (e.g., translation to clinical practice) and contributes to a waste of research efforts and funding [1, 10]. While research examining outcome reporting has been performed in certain fields of pediatric health [7], to date, little attention to this issue has been seen in child and youth mental health.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating mental health condition that is currently one of the largest contributors of global disease burden [11]. MDD is prevalent among adolescent populations, affecting an estimated 5 % of youth aged 12 to 17 years [12, 13]. Adolescent MDD is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including increased risk of suicide during adolescence and poor functional outcomes in adulthood [14,15,16]. Uncertainty remains when establishing evidence-informed effective treatments in this population, for example, whether medication adds to the effect of psychosocial therapy [17,18,19,20]. The uncertainty could be attributed, in part, to issues around the interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCT results that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Variability in outcomes measured across RCTs is one contributing factor to these issues, such as interpretability of results, as reported in previous reviews [21, 22].

Recently, substantial heterogeneity was identified in the outcomes selected for measurement in clinical research studies in adolescent MDD, including RCTs [23, 24]. Also, given a single outcome, e.g., “depression symptoms”, up to 19 different outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) were used in current RCTs [23, 24]. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for adolescent depression suggest incomplete and variable reporting of outcome descriptions, such as a lack of information on how outcomes were measured [21, 25], but there has yet to be a systematic, transparent, and comprehensive thorough assessment of outcome reporting in this area.

Understanding the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is important to assess whether this is a problem in this field and inform the potential need to standardize outcome reporting. To date, there has been no formal assessment of outcome reporting in published trial reports in adolescent MDD. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether outcome-specific information is reported in a comprehensive fashion in RCTs assessing depression treatments in adolescents.

Methods

Study selection

We performed our study in parallel with a systematic scoping review to identify eligible RCTs [24, 26]. RCTs that evaluated treatment for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years published in English between 2008 and 2017 were included; detailed search strategy and eligibility criteria are published elsewhere [27]. In brief, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT) were searched to identify eligible RCTs. Title/abstract and full-text screening were performed independently and in duplicate.

For the purposes of this study, we employed additional eligibility criteria to restrict our sample to those RCTs that specified a single primary outcome. To identify trial reports with a single identifiable primary outcome, the following criteria were applied by the two reviewers, independently and in duplicate: (1) the outcome was explicitly specified as “primary” in the article text; (2) the outcome was explicitly described in the primary study objectives; and/or (3) the outcome was explicitly stated in the sample size calculation in the article text, as the primary outcome is used for sample size calculations [28]. We also included trials that reported on just one outcome, which we inferred to be the primary outcome.

Outcome reporting assessment

To assess the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting, a candidate list of 70 outcome reporting items developed as part of the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) project was used [29]. One aim of InsPECT was to develop a reporting extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement, which is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials [30]. This new CONSORT extension, called CONSORT-Outcomes, is specific to outcomes and consists of a minimal, essential set of reporting items to be addressed for all primary and important secondary outcomes in any trial [29]. The final version of CONSORT-Outcomes was developed after the conduct of this study and is in preparation for peer-reviewed publication. The preliminary version of the extension used in this study is organized into 10 thematic categories: 1) What: Description of the outcome; 2) Why: Rationale for selecting the outcome; 3) How: The way the outcome is measured; 4) Who: Source of information of the outcome; 5) Where: Assessment location and setting of the outcome; 6) When: Timing of measurement of the outcome; 7) Outcome data management and analyses; 8) Missing outcome data; 9) Interpretation; and 10) Modifications [31,32,33].

Fifty-eight of the 70 candidate items were deemed to be relevant and/or possible to assess in this study. The 12 items excluded are described with reasons in Additional file 1 (e.g., the item “Specified if the outcome is part of a core outcome set, if a core outcome set is publicly available” was excluded because there is currently no core outcome set for adolescent depression).

Assessments of the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting in the published trials made using the resultant 58 item checklist were conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (SP and AC) trained in clinical trial reporting methodology. A standardized data charting form (available online [34]) developed using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management software [35] was used during assessment.

Outcome reporting was assessed and scored as “fully reported”, “partially reported”, or “not reported” for the primary outcome in each included RCT through the assessment of information reported for each of the 58 checklist items. An item was scored as “fully reported” when the entire concept of the item was reported in the published article. If the authors of the published RCT explicitly refer to supplementary materials (e.g., published protocols, statistical analysis plans, or secondary analysis reports) in relation to a specific reporting item, then this item would be scored as “fully reported” during assessment. A score of “partially reported” indicated that only one or some components of the item were reported; this applied only to checklist items that contained multiple components (see Table 2 for list of applicable items). For example, a score of “partially reported” for item #19 (validity of OMI in individuals similar to the study sample) indicates that the authors provided evidence of the validity of the OMI used, but did not specify whether the OMI was validated in individuals similar to the study sample. Items were classified as “not reported” when no information was provided for the item. Additional options included “unsure” and “not applicable”. “Unsure” was provided to flag content for discussion among reviewers to determine the appropriate reporting classification by consensus. A score of “not applicable” indicated that the item concept was not relevant to the RCT based on the information provided in the published article (e.g., the item “Specified whether order of administration of outcome measurement instrument was standardized, if assessing multiple outcomes” was only applicable to articles that reported using more than one outcome measurement instrument).

Prior to commencing the reporting assessment, the two reviewers (SP and AC) underwent a training procedure with an expert verifier (EJM), which was overseen by NJB, who led the development of the candidate reporting items as part of the InsPECT project [29]. To ensure sufficient agreement between the two reviewers, training was carried out on a random sample of three included RCTs [37,38,39]. The reviewers conducted outcome reporting assessment until sufficient inter-rater agreement was met for each of the three RCTs, which we defined as greater than 75% raw agreement. Initial percent agreement for the training set RCTs were 71, 77 and 89%. After discrepancies and areas of uncertainty were discussed, the two reviewers repeated their reporting assessment on the same sample of RCTs to ensure that there was a clear understanding of each checklist item concept. The percent agreement following discussion between the reviewers were 89, 96, and 97%, respectively. Remaining disagreements and areas of uncertainty were resolved by two expert team members (EJM and NJB). This same assessment and verification process were then applied to the remainder of the included RCTs such that agreement was reached on all items in the final data set.

Synthesis of results

Data analysis included descriptive quantitative measures (counts and frequencies) of study characteristics and reporting item results. The comprehensiveness of reporting was calculated for each RCT based on the percentage of all items scored as “fully reported,” “partially reported,” and “not reported.”

Results

Search results

Forty-two articles describing 32 RCTs were found after applying the initial eligibility criteria. Eighteen articles describing 18 unique RCTs were included in this study. Of these, 17 articles explicitly specified a single primary outcome and one article reported a single outcome, which was inferred to be the primary outcome. Twenty-four articles were excluded for not having a discernable single primary outcome. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram outlining this process.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for trial reports assessing treatment interventions in adolescent major depressive disorder

Included RCTs were from a systematic scoping review performed in parallel with our study [24]; eligibility criteria are published elsewhere [27]. RCT: randomized clinical trial; MDD: major depressive disorder.

Full size image

Study characteristics

Table 1 describes the 18 RCTs included in this study. The majority of included RCTs were carried out in North America (78%) and were government funded (61%). Nearly half of the RCTs examined drug therapy interventions (44%); however, other interventions included psychosocial therapy (39%), drug and psychosocial therapy (11%), and physical activity (6%). The median sample size was 188 (range: 22–470) study participants. Depressive symptom severity was the most commonly reported primary outcome, which was reported by 12 of the 18 included RCTs.

Table 1 Characteristics of included articles of randomized clinical trials assessing treatment interventions for adolescents with major depressive disorder (n = 18 trials)
Full size table

Outcome reporting assessment

The overall percentage of items scored as “fully reported”, “partially reported”, or “not reported” was variable across the thematic categories (Fig. 2). The highest percentage of fully reported items was “Outcome data management and analyses” (62%), followed by “Missing outcome data” (54%) and “What: Description of the outcome” (53%). The categories of “How: The way the outcome is measured” and “Where: Assessment location and setting of the outcome” had the lowest percentage of “fully reported” items (16 and 17%, respectively).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Outcome reporting comprehensiveness across 18 adolescent major depressive disorder trials, by thematic item category

Full size image

There was wide variability in how each of the 18 included RCTs scored on the assessments of outcome comprehensiveness; reporting frequencies for all 58 items are presented in Table 2. Overall, about half of the 58 items were fully reported per RCT (Fig. 3; Additional file 2). The median percentage of items that were scored as fully reported was 38% (range: 20–60%) per RCT (Fig. 3). The percentage of reporting items fully reported appeared relatively stable over the 10 year time period (2008 to 2017) (Fig. 3). Notable findings for items in each outcome reporting category are described below.

Table 2 Frequency of outcome reporting classifications for each reporting itemfor the primary outcome in 18 included RCTs
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Outcome reporting comprehensiveness across 18 adolescent major depressive disorder trials

Full size image

What: description of the outcome

All 18 RCTs explicitly stated the outcome and 94% specified the outcome as primary explicitly in the article text (items #2 and #3, respectively). Criteria for clinical significance on the primary outcome was defined in 61% of RCTs (item #5). Items that were less frequently reported in this category were the description of the outcome domain (definition provided in Table 2; 33%; item #1), the justification for the selection of the primary outcome (17%; item #4), and justification of the criteria used to define clinical significance (17%; item #6).

Why: rationale for selecting the outcome

Items describing the rationale for selecting the outcome were variably reported. The most frequently reported items included describing why the primary outcome is relevant to stakeholders (61%; item #9) and describing how the primary outcome addresses the objective/research question of the study (56%; item #8). The least frequently reported item involved describing which stakeholders were actively involved in the selection of the primary outcome (11%; item #10).

How: the way the outcome is measured

Most RCTs described the OMI used (94%; item #13), but less than half included details about the scoring and scaling of the OMI (44%; item #13). Few RCTs described the measurement properties of the OMI. Only 16 of the 18 RCTs could be assessed for reporting on the validity of the OMI as two RCTs used clinician judgment. One of the 16 RCTs described both the validity of the OMI in individuals similar to the study sample (item #19) and in the study setting (item #20). Three of the 16 RCTs reported on the validity of the OMI without specifying if the validity was established in similar study samples or settings (19%; items #19 and #20). Three RCTs reported on the reliability of the OMI in a relevant study sample (item #22), and none reported on the reliability of the OMI specific to the study setting (item #23). Six of the 16 RCTs reported the reliability of the OMI but did not specify whether reliability was established in individuals similar to the study sample and seven studies did not specify reliability in the setting used. Few RCTs explicitly specified responsiveness of the OMI used (13%; item #24) or the feasibility (28%; item #25), acceptability and/or research burden (11%; item #26) of the OMI in the study sample.

Who: source of information of the outcome

Details about who the outcome assessors were, and the number of assessors, were fully reported in half of the included 18 RCTs (item #29), but justification as to who the assessors were (e.g., trained clinicians, a nurse, or parents) was lower (17%; item #30). The masking (blinding) status of outcome assessors to intervention assignment was frequently fully reported (78%; item #31). Training of assessors and a description of how outcome data quality was maximized were reported in over 33 and 50% of RCTs, respectively (items #32 and #33).

Where: assessment location and setting of the outcome

The location and setting of outcome assessment were not frequently reported in the included RCTs (28 and 22%; items #34 and #35, respectively). No RCT provided justification of the suitability of the outcome assessment setting for the study sample (item #36).

When: timing of measurement of the outcome

Timing and/or frequency of outcome assessment were reported in all RCTs (item #37), though justification was provided in just 6% of RCTs (item #38).

Outcome data management and analyses

Overall, items describing outcome data management and analyses details were well reported. All RCTs described the unit of analysis of the outcome (item #40), the outcome analysis metric (item #41), the method of aggregation (item #42), and the time period for which the outcome was analyzed (item #47). Items that were less frequently reported included the justification for the selection of covariates/factors used for analyzing outcome data (12%; item #45) and the precision of the estimated effect size as part of the outcome results (22%; item #46).

Details about outcome data management were variably reported, ranging from 0 to 17% of items being fully reported (items #48–50). Most RCTs described some information pertaining to the outcome data, assessment process, and/or analysis for participants who discontinued or deviated from intervention protocol (83%; item #48).

Missing outcome data and interpretation

Over 60% of the RCTs described how much outcome data were missing, reasons for missing outcome data, and the statistical methods to handle missing outcome data (items #52–54). Justification for the methods used to handle missing outcome data was the least frequently reported item in this category (17%; item #55). Most RCTs provided an interpretation of outcome data in relation to clinical outcomes (67%; item #57). Few discussed the potential impact of missing outcome data on the interpretation of findings (22%; item 58).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct an in-depth assessment of the comprehensiveness (i.e., reporting that provides enough detail to ensure full understanding of an outcome) of the descriptions of primary outcomes in publications of adolescent MDD RCTs. We found that nearly 60% of articles did not report a discernable single primary outcome. Primary outcome descriptions varied considerably in the level of detail provided between trial publications and by the type of information. On average, approximately half of the reporting items from the 58 item checklist were not fully reported in the published articles. Notably, the overall comprehensiveness of reporting has been relatively stable over the 10-year period, with no notable improvement. Items describing the analysis of the primary outcome were frequently reported whereas items describing how the primary outcome was measured and where assessments took place were reported in less than 20% of RCTs.

Comprehensive outcome reporting enables transparency and reproducibility of information about the planning, conduct, and findings of trials [54]. Consequently, knowledge users are able to critically evaluate and utilize trial results to inform effective clinical practice and decision-making at the health system level. Conversely, when trial outcome descriptions are insufficiently or variably reported, this can impair the use of trial results in evidence syntheses (i.e., meta-analyses) and effectively reduce the ability to interpret these results for clinical decision-making [10]. In the text that follows, we discuss potential reasons for the current state of primary outcome reporting in publications of adolescent depression RCTs and examine implications for the interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of such RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in the field.

Outcome reporting

It is important to note that while there was variation in primary outcome reporting across the included RCTs, there were also aspects that were consistently well reported. These included details about the timing and frequency of outcome assessment, as well as masking status of outcome assessors. Additionally, details about primary outcome analyses were generally well reported. All RCT publications described the unit of analysis, the method of aggregation, the analysis metric, and the time period for which the outcome was analyzed. This may be attributed to the fact that items on timing of outcome assessment, masking of outcome assessors, and outcome analysis are iterations of existing reporting items from the CONSORT statement [30]. First published in 2001, CONSORT is a widespread and highly endorsed reporting guideline that has previously been shown to be beneficial to the comprehensiveness of trial reporting in published articles [55]. Though CONSORT provides general guidance on how to report outcomes, deficiencies in outcome reporting in trial publications remains, as demonstrated in our study and in previous publications on outcome reporting [8, 9, 56,57,58]. The uptake of the CONSORT-Outcomes standard may help ensure that all essential outcome-specific information is reported in future youth depression and other trial publications [29].

Though most details about primary outcome analyses were frequently fully reported, reporting deficiencies were found particularly for details on covariate selection for adjusted analyses. Out of the 17 RCTs that reported adjusted analyses among the 18 included RCTs, two provided a justification for the selection of the included covariates. For example, while the authors of one trial wrote that covariates were included “... to model systematic differences due to treatment, assessment time point or patient characteristics,” no explanation was provided as to why the latter two covariates were selected [17]. Previous reviews report similar deficiencies in the justification of adjusted analyses [59,60,61]. A lack of explanation for the covariates used can obscure the presence or absence of “data torturing” in the reported analyses [62], where the covariates in the adjusted outcome analysis are selectively chosen post-hoc to demonstrate or exaggerate positive treatment effects. This inflates type I error rates and can impact meta-analyses findings when inflated effect estimates are pooled [63].

Our study showed that details on the description of the OMI used, including its measurement properties (e.g., validity, reliability, responsiveness), are not frequently reported in a comprehensive manner. The importance of reporting this information is illustrated by a recent review, which found that providing a description of the trial OMI(s), including details on their measurement properties, is one of the most consistently recommended pieces of information to include in clinical trial reports among documents that provide guidance on outcome reporting in trials [64]. Reporting this information is essential to communicate the validity of outcome results.

Implications for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers

There are wide implications of these findings for stakeholders of mental health trials, such as patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. For example, the item “Justified the criteria used for defining meaningful change (e.g., the minimal important difference, responder definition) including what would constitute a good or poor outcome” can provide useful context and guidance for clinical practice when fully reported. However, only 17% of RCTs included in our study provided a justification of the criteria used to defining meaningful change. Given the growing movement of patient and caregiver engagement in research, care providers may expect justification for these criteria that they can evaluate and include in consultations with patients and caregivers when discussing possible treatment outcomes. This expectation is supported by a review by Beaton et al that emphasized the importance of different perspectives when defining minimal clinically important differences (e.g., meaningful change) [65]. This deficiency of reporting suggests that engagement from important stakeholders remains uncommon in determining what constitutes meaningful change. More typically, the determination of a good or poor outcome is based on statistical interpretations rather than what meaningful change means from a patient, caregiver, or healthcare provider perspective [66, 67].

Another outcome-specific reporting item that plays a role in clinical decision-making in youth mental health is the justification of the timing and frequency of outcome assessment. Major depressive episodes often improve and remit within seven to nine months of symptom onset, when untreated, and the time to symptom improvement and remission rates vary depending on the type of treatment [68, 69]. Information on expected time to symptom improvement and time to remission is an imperative consideration when deciding on the timing and frequency of outcome assessment for RCTs in adolescent MDD, as change should be measured prior to natural remission, or in line with the mechanism of action of the therapy provided, in order to detect change due to treatment intervention [70]. As only one RCT included in our study justified the choice of time points and schedule of outcome assessment, this can leave knowledge users with little evidence to appropriately interpret the trial results.

Variation in outcome reporting can place a hindrance on the usability and comprehension of trial findings by knowledge users, who often include those deciding on the best course of care for their patients, other researchers, and importantly, also patients and caregivers themselves. Clear reporting of the rationale for selecting the primary outcome in a trial, for example, would help improve patient understanding about the primary trial objectives and its relevance to the domain in which they seek to see improvement themselves (i.e., whether an outcome that is meaningful to them was measured). However, this information was reported in only three of 18 RCTs included in our study. Relatedly, only a small minority of articles described stakeholder involvement in outcome selection. As yet, there has been no assessment involving key stakeholders about which outcomes should be selected and measured in adolescent MDD trials [71, 72]. Outcomes can be selected for use in a trial for a variety of reasons (e.g., clinical importance, patient acceptability, cost, historical reasons), with different importance placed on different outcomes by different stakeholders [70, 73]. The development of a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured [74], could help with standardization of outcome selection and reporting in adolescent MDD trials, especially when coupled with reporting guidance, such as CONSORT-Outcomes. Although COS is still a relatively new concept for use in mental health trials [71], the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative has fostered the development of COS in many other clinical areas [75]. The development of a COS for adolescent MDD is underway [27, 76].

It is important to note, however, that journal word limits may preclude researchers from reporting all these outcome-specific details in their final trial report, and not all may be relevant to all trials. In cases where these limits are in place, online supplementary material or appendices provided by journals, online open source repositories, and other study documents such as publicly available trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports may serve to supplement any important details excluded from a trial report. The use of these additional materials can be advantageous for clinical researchers to optimize the transparent reporting of trial objectives, methods, and results that are interpretable and useful for knowledge end-users.

Strengths and limitations

We conducted a comprehensive assessment of primary outcomes in RCTs spanning a range of reporting categories. These categories originated from preliminary results of a scoping review of the literature and consultation with mental health content experts and methodologists [64]. We focused on primary outcomes in this study given they are the most important outcomes in a trial as they drive primary study objectives, sample size calculations, and are key in the interpretation of trials’ identified treatment effect sizes [28]. We employed rigorous data capture methods for our study by having two trained reviewers with experience in epidemiologic methods and clinical research perform reporting assessments in duplicate and using a consensus-based approach to resolve any discrepancies in scoring classifications.

One limitation of this study may be that we excluded publications of RCTs with multiple primary outcomes and RCTs that were unclear in identifying their primary outcomes. Therefore, the actual state of primary outcome reporting in adolescent MDD trials could potentially differ from what we found in our study. Notably, previous reviews examining outcome reporting in published mental health trials found reporting deficiencies in the specification of which outcomes were primary or secondary and evidence of selective outcome reporting of multiple primary outcomes [5, 77]. Second, we excluded grey literature as an information source and restricted to adolescent MDD trials published in English, thereby potentially reducing the generalizability of our findings. Nevertheless, we suspect that outcome reporting is also variable in RCTs not published in English, based on similar findings from a review with no language restrictions that assessed reporting of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsed journals [55]. Third, there may be some subjectivity in our distinction between “fully reported” and “partially reported” for items where both reporting scores were applicable. To help mitigate this risk, two trained reviewers performed the assessment in duplicate accompanied by a training guide – developed by the research team (AM, EJM, SP, AC) with expertise from methodology experts (NJB, MO) – that explained each reporting item and scoring category with descriptive examples. Finally, the assessment tool used in our study is an early version of a new CONSORT-Outcomes extension and has not yet been validated. As this study was conducted while CONSORT-Outcomes was in early development, we included all 58 items in our study knowing that some items may be more relevant to trials in adolescent depression than others. Examples of more relevant items may include justifying the timing and frequency of outcome assessment and reporting which stakeholders were actively involved in selecting the primary outcome.

Conclusions

Large heterogeneity exists in primary outcome reporting in published RCTs in adolescent MDD, with frequent omissions of key details about outcome selection and measurement. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. A standard with minimal criteria for outcome reporting in RCTs in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/teqap/.

Abbreviations

RCT:

Randomized clinical trial

MDD:

Major depressive disorder

OMI:

Outcome measurement instrument

MEDLINE:

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

PsycINFO:

Psychological Information Database

CCRCT:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

InsPECT:

Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

COS:

Core Outcome Set

COMET:

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials

References

  1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mantziari S, Demartines N. Poor outcome reporting in medical research; building practice on spoilt grounds. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(Suppl 1):S15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365:1159–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Azar M, Riehm KE, McKay D, Thombs BD. Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials published in the journal of consulting and clinical psychology. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142894.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Atal I, Moher D, Dickersin K, Boutron I, et al. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study. BMJ. 2017;357:j2490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhaloo Z, Adams D, Liu Y, Hansraj N, Hartling L, Terwee CB, et al. Primary outcomes Reporting in trials (PORTal): a systematic review of inadequate reporting in pediatric randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting BG. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66844.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330:753.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K, et al. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization. Depression and other common mental disorders: global health estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Contract No.: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thapar A, Collishaw S, Pine DS, Thapar AK. Depression in adolescence. Lancet. 2012;379:1056–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Merikangas KR, Nakamura EF, Kessler RC. Epidemiology of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2009;11:7–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Weissman MM, Wolk S, Goldstein RB, Moreau D, Adams P, Greenwald S, et al. Depressed adolescents grown up. JAMA. 1999;281:1707–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Copeland WE, Wolke D, Shanahan L, Costello EJ. Adult functional outcomes of common childhood psychiatric problems: a prospective, longitudinal study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:892–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Rao U, Weissman MM, Martin JA, Hammond RW. Childhood depression and risk of suicide: a preliminary report of a longitudinal study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32:21–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodyer IM, Reynolds S, Barrett B, Byford S, Dubicka B, Hill J, et al. Cognitive-behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy versus brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depression (IMPACT): a multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Davey CG, Chanen AM, Hetrick SE, Cotton SM, Ratheesh A, Amminger GP, et al. The addition of fluoxetine to cognitive behavioural therapy for youth depression (YoDA-C): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6:735–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. March J, Silva S, Petrycki S, Curry J, Wells K, Fairbank J, et al. Fluoxetine, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and their combination for adolescents with depression: treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292:807–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brent D, Emslie G, Clarke G, Wagner KD, Asarnow JR, Keller M, et al. Switching to another SSRI or to venlafaxine with or without cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with SSRI-resistant depression: the TORDIA randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:901–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Cox GR, Callahan P, Churchill R, Hunot V, Merry SN, Parker AG, et al. Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD008324.

  22. Hetrick SE, Cox GR, Witt KG, Bir JJ, Merry SN. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT and interpersonal therapy (IPT) based interventions for preventing depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):CD003380.

  23. Krause KR, Bear HA, Edbrooke-Childs J, Wolpert M. What outcomes count? Outcomes measured for adolescent depression between 2007 and 2017. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58:61–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mew EJ, Monsour A, Saeed L, Santos L, Patel S, Watson PN, et al. Systematic scoping review identifies heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent depression clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol, in revision. 2020.

  25. Hazell P, Mirzaie M. Tricyclic drugs for depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD002317.

  26. Systematic scoping review identifies heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent depression clinical trials. 2019. https://osf.io/83vyn/. Accessed 11 May 2019.

  27. Monsour A, Mew E, Szatmari P, Patel S, Saeed L, Offringa M, et al. Outcomes reported in randomised clinical trials of major depressive disorder treatments in adolescents: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;9:e024191.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, Szatmari P, Pierro A, Kelly LE, et al. Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the instrument for reporting planned endpoints in clinical trials (InsPECT). Trials. 2019;20:161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Butcher NJ. Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) - Open Science Framework files. https://osf.io/arwy8/. Accessed 22 April 2019.

  32. Butcher NJ, Mew EJ, Monsour A, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review. Trials, in revision; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ding S, Mew EJ, Chee ATA, Offringa M, Butcher NJ, Moore GP. Neurodevelopmental outcome descriptions in cohorts of extremely preterm children. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1136/archdischild-2019-318144. [Epub ahead of print].

  34. Monsour A. Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials: standardization needed - Open Science Framework Files. https://osf.io/teqap/. Accessed 8 Nov 2019.

  35. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - a meta data-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sinha I, Jones L, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Szigethy E, Bujoreanu SI, Youk AO, Weisz J, Benhayon D, Fairclough D, et al. Randomized efficacy trial of two psychotherapies for depression in youth with inflammatory bowel disease. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53:726–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Clarke G, DeBar LL, Pearson JA, Dickerson JF, Lynch FL, Gullion CM, et al. Cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care for youth declining antidepressants: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20151851.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Atkinson SD, Prakash A, Zhang Q, Pangallo BA, Bangs ME, Emslie GJ, et al. A double-blind efficacy and safety study of duloxetine flexible dosing in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2014;24:180–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cheung A, Kusumakar V, Kutcher S, Dubo E, Garland J, Weiss M, et al. Maintenance study for adolescent depression. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2008;18:389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodyer IM, Dubicka B, Wilkinson P, Kelvin R, Roberts C, Byford S, et al. A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy in adolescents with major depression treated by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The ADAPT trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii -iv, ix-60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Emslie GJ, Ventura D, Korotzer A, Tourkodimitris S. Escitalopram in the treatment of adolescent depression: a randomized placebo-controlled multisite trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48:721–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Findling RL, Pagano ME, McNamara NK, Stansbrey RJ, Faber JE, Lingler J, et al. The short-term safety and efficacy of fluoxetine in depressed adolescents with alcohol and cannabis use disorders: a pilot randomized placebo-controlled trial. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2009;3:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Becker-Weidman EG, Jacobs RH, Reinecke MA, Silva SG, March JS. Social problem-solving among adolescents treated for depression. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48:11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. DelBello MP, Hochadel TJ, Portland KB, Azzaro AJ, Katic A, Khan A, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of selegiline transdermal system in depressed adolescents. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2014;24:311–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Emslie GJ, Prakash A, Zhang Q, Pangallo BA, Bangs ME, March JS. A double-blind efficacy and safety study of duloxetine fixed doses in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2014;24:170–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Richardson LP, Ludman E, McCauley E, Lindenbaum J, Larison C, Zhou C, et al. Collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:809–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Kobak KA, Mundt JC, Kennard B. Integrating technology into cognitive behavior therapy for adolescent depression: a pilot study. Ann General Psychiatry. 2015;14:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Charkhandeh M, Talib MA, Hunt CJ. The clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavior therapy and an alternative medicine approach in reducing symptoms of depression in adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2016;239:325–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cheung A, Levitt A, Cheng MW, Santor D, Kutcher S, Dubo E, et al. A pilot study of citalopram treatment in preventing relapse of depressive episode after acute treatment. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;25:11–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kondo DG, Forrest LN, Shi X, Sung YH, Hellem TL, Huber RS, et al. Creatine target engagement with brain bioenergetics: a dose-ranging phosphorus-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy study of adolescent females with SSRI-resistant depression. Amino Acids. 2016;48:1941–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. McCauley E, Gudmundsen G, Schloredt K, Martell C, Rhew I, Hubley S, et al. The adolescent behavioral activation program: adapting behavioral activation as a treatment for depression in adolescence. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016;45:291–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wunram HL, Hamacher S, Hellmich M, Volk M, Janicke F, Reinhard F, et al. Whole body vibration added to treatment as usual is effective in adolescents with depression: a partly randomized, three-armed clinical trial in inpatients. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018;27:645–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:MR000030.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hall NJ, Kapadia MZ, Eaton S, Chan WW, Nickel C, Pierro A, et al. Outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of appendicitis treatments in children: a systematic review. Trials. 2015;16:275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Johnston BC, Shamseer L, da Costa BR, Tsuyuki RT, Vohra S. Measurement issues in trials of pediatric acute diarrheal diseases: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Wang X, Li T. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability. PLoS One. 2014;9:e109400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355:1064–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JPA. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ. 2013;347:f4313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Yu LM, Chan AW, Hopewell S, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review. Trials. 2010;11:59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mills JL. Data Torturing. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1196–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lee PH. Covariate adjustments in randomized controlled trials increased study power and reduced biasedness of effect size estimation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Butcher NJ, Mew EJ, Monsour A, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review. Trials, in press. 2019.

  65. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. De Smet MM, Meganck R, De Geest R, Norman UA, Truijens F, Desmet M. What "good outcome" means to patients: understanding recovery and improvement in psychotherapy for major depression from a mixed-methods perspective. J Couns Psychol. 2019;67:25–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chan KB, Man-Son-Hing M, Molnar FJ, Laupacis A. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165:1197–202.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Mullen S. Major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. Ment Health Clin. 2018;8:275–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kennard BD, Silva SG, Tonev S, Rohde P, Hughes JL, Vitiello B, et al. Remission and recovery in the treatment for adolescents with depression study (TADS): acute and long-term outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48:186–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Monga S, Offringa M, Butcher NJ, Szatmari P. From research to practice: the importance of appropriate outcome selection, measurement, and reporting in pediatric mental health research. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59:497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Szatmari P, Offringa M, Butcher N, Monga S. Counting what counts: the case for harmonized outcomes in child and youth mental health research. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58:656–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Monga S, Monsour A, Stallwood E, Desai R, Courtney DB, Henderson J, et al. Core set of outcomes for adolescents with major depressive disorder: a tool of standardized outcomes for clinical research. 2020. https://osf.io/qh3cb/. Accessed 4 Mar 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cuijpers P. Targets and outcomes of psychotherapies for mental disorders: an overview. World Psychiatry. 2019;18:276–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18:280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Kirkham JJ, Bracken M, Hind L, Pennington K, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Industry funding was associated with increased use of core outcome sets. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:90–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Core set of outcomes for adolescents with major depressive disorder: A tool of standardized outcomes for clinical research. 2018. http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1122. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.

  77. Tyler KM, Normand SL, Horton NJ. The use and abuse of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled depression trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:299–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tamsin Adams-Webber and Alanna Marson for their assistance in developing the electronic bibliographic database search strategy for the original primary literature search. Dr. Courtney and Dr. Watson were supported by the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Dr. Szatmari was supported by the Patsy and Jamie Anderson Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health. Dr. Monga was supported by the SickKids Chair in Child & Youth Medical Psychiatry.

Funding

This project received financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Project #14895). The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, 686 Bay Street, Room 11.9712, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 0A4, Canada

    Andrea Monsour, Emma J. Mew, Sagar Patel, Alyssandra Chee-a-tow, Leena Saeed, Lucia Santos, Martin Offringa & Nancy J. Butcher

  2. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Darren B. Courtney, Priya N. Watson & Peter Szatmari

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Darren B. Courtney, Priya N. Watson, Suneeta Monga & Peter Szatmari

  4. Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada

    Suneeta Monga & Peter Szatmari

  5. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Martin Offringa

  6. Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Martin Offringa

Authors
  1. Andrea Monsour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emma J. Mew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sagar Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alyssandra Chee-a-tow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leena Saeed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lucia Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Darren B. Courtney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Priya N. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Suneeta Monga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter Szatmari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Martin Offringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nancy J. Butcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NJB, MO, and PS were responsible for the study conception. AM, EJM, and NJB were responsible for study design. AM drafted the initial version of the manuscript, with input from MO, NJB, and EJM, and with assistance from SP and AC. SP, AC, LuS, and LeS collected the data and/or conducted the reporting quality assessments. AM, EJM, SP, AC, LeS, LuS, DC, PNW, SM, PS, MO, and NJB contributed to the interpretation of results. EJM, SP, AC, LeS, LuS, DC, PNW, SM, PS, MO, and NJB critically reviewed and provided feedback on the study design and manuscript. AM prepared the final manuscript for submission, with input from MO and NJB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Offringa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Outcome reporting items removed from the comprehensive item checklist. Word document.

Additional file 2.

Outcome reporting comprehensiveness across 18 adolescent major depressive disorder trials, by checklist item. Excel document.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monsour, A., Mew, E.J., Patel, S. et al. Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization. BMC Med Res Methodol 20, 129 (2020). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12874-020-01019-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12874-020-01019-6

Keywords

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us