Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Statistical power in clinical trials of interventions for mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders.
de Vries, Ymkje Anna; Schoevers, Robert A; Higgins, Julian P T; Munafò, Marcus R; Bastiaansen, Jojanneke A.
Afiliação
  • de Vries YA; Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Schoevers RA; Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Higgins JPT; Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Munafò MR; University of Groningen, Research School of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences (BCN), Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Bastiaansen JA; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Psychol Med ; 53(10): 4499-4506, 2023 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35588241
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Previous research has suggested that statistical power is suboptimal in many biomedical disciplines, but it is unclear whether power is better in trials for particular interventions, disorders, or outcome types. We therefore performed a detailed examination of power in trials of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders.

METHODS:

We extracted data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Mental Health). We focused on continuous efficacy outcomes and estimated power to detect predetermined effect sizes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.20-0.80, primary SMD = 0.40) and meta-analytic effect sizes (ESMA). We performed meta-regression to estimate the influence of including underpowered studies in meta-analyses.

RESULTS:

We included 256 reviews with 10 686 meta-analyses and 47 384 studies. Statistical power for continuous efficacy outcomes was very low across intervention and disorder types (overall median [IQR] power for SMD = 0.40 0.32 [0.19-0.54]; for ESMA 0.23 [0.09-0.58]), only reaching conventionally acceptable levels (80%) for SMD = 0.80. Median power to detect the ESMA was higher in treatment-as-usual (TAU)/waitlist-controlled (0.49-0.63) or placebo-controlled (0.12-0.38) trials than in trials comparing active treatments (0.07-0.13). Adequately-powered studies produced smaller effect sizes than underpowered studies (B = -0.06, p ⩽ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Power to detect both predetermined and meta-analytic effect sizes in psychiatric trials was low across all interventions and disorders examined. Consistent with the presence of reporting bias, underpowered studies produced larger effect sizes than adequately-powered studies. These results emphasize the need to increase sample sizes and to reduce reporting bias against studies reporting null results to improve the reliability of the published literature.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ansiedade / Transtornos Psicóticos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Psychol Med Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ansiedade / Transtornos Psicóticos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Psychol Med Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda