Comparing the evidential strength for psychotropic drugs: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

Approval and prescription of psychotropic drugs should be informed by the strength of evidence for efficacy. Using a Bayesian framework, we examined (1) whether psychotropic drugs are supported by substantial evidence (at the time of approval by the Food and Drug Administration), and (2) whether there are systematic differences across drug groups. Data from short-term, placebo-controlled phase II/III clinical trials for 15 antipsychotics, 16 antidepressants for depression, nine antidepressants for anxiety, and 20 drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were extracted from FDA reviews. Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed and strength of evidence was quantified (i.e. BFBMA). Strength of evidence and trialling varied between drugs. Median evidential strength was extreme for ADHD medication (BFBMA = 1820.4), moderate for antipsychotics (BFBMA = 365.4), and considerably lower and more frequently classified as weak or moderate for antidepressants for depression (BFBMA = 94.2) and anxiety (BFBMA = 49.8). Varying median effect sizes (ESschizophrenia = 0.45, ESdepression = 0.30, ESanxiety = 0.37, ESADHD = 0.72), sample sizes (Nschizophrenia = 324, Ndepression = 218, Nanxiety = 254, NADHD = 189.5), and numbers of trials (kschizophrenia = 3, kdepression = 5.5, kanxiety = 3, kADHD = 2) might account for differences. Although most drugs were supported by strong evidence at the time of approval, some only had moderate or ambiguous evidence. These results show the need for more systematic quantification and classification of statistical evidence for psychotropic drugs. Evidential strength should be communicated transparently and clearly towards clinical decision makers.

The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication.

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students' understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

Social Anxiety and Empathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the association between social anxiety and affective (AE) and cognitive empathy (CE). METHODS: 1442 studies from PsycINFO, Medline, and EMBASE (inception-January 2020) were systematically reviewed. Included studies (N = 48) either predicted variance in empathy using social anxiety scores or compared empathy scores between socially anxious individuals and a control group. RESULTS: Social anxiety and AE were statistically significantly positively associated, k = 14, r = .103 (95%CI [.003, .203]), z = 2.03, p = .043. Sex (QM (2) = 18.79, p <  .0001), and type of measures (QM (1 = 7.34, p = .007) moderated the association. Correlations were significant for male samples (rmale = .316, (95%CI [.200, .432])) and studies using self-report measures (rself-report = .162 (95%CI [.070, .254])). Overall, social anxiety and CE were not significantly associated, k = 52, r =-.021 (95%CI [-.075, .034]), z= -0.74, p = .459. Sample type moderated the association (QM (1) = 5.03, p < .0001). For clinical samples the association was negative (rclinical= -.112, (95%CI [-.201, -.017]). CONCLUSION: There was evidence for a positive association between social anxiety and AE, but future studies are needed to verify the moderating roles of sex and type of measure. Besides, low CE might only hold for patients with SAD.

Rethinking remdesivir for COVID-19: A Bayesian reanalysis of trial findings.

BACKGROUND: Following testing in clinical trials, the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 has been authorized for use in parts of the world, including the USA and Europe. Early authorizations were largely based on results from two clinical trials. A third study published by Wang et al. was underpowered and deemed inconclusive. Although regulators have shown an interest in interpreting the Wang et al. study, under a frequentist framework it is difficult to determine if the non-significant finding was caused by a lack of power or by the absence of an effect. Bayesian hypothesis testing does allow for quantification of evidence in favor of the absence of an effect. FINDINGS: Results of our Bayesian reanalysis of the three trials show ambiguous evidence for the primary outcome of clinical improvement and moderate evidence against the secondary outcome of decreased mortality rate. Additional analyses of three studies published after initial marketing approval support these findings. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that regulatory bodies take all available evidence into account for endorsement decisions. A Bayesian approach can be beneficial, in particular in case of statistically non-significant results. This is especially pressing when limited clinical efficacy data is available.

The Relationship Between Paternal and Maternal Depression During the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Meta-analyses suggest an increased prevalence of paternal depression during the perinatal period of around 10%. The relationship between paternal and maternal symptoms, however, has received little attention. Objective: To determine pooled estimates pertaining to the relationship between paternal and maternal depression during the perinatal period according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Data sources: Studies reporting on the relationship between depression in fathers and mothers between the first trimester and the first year following childbirth were identified using PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for the period between November 2009 and February 2020. Study selection: A total of 28 primary, empirical studies published in English or German, reporting effect estimates for the relationship of depression in mother-father/partner dyads, involving 11,593 couples, were included. Ten studies included multiple assessments, resulting in 64 extracted effects. Analysis: Information on correlations and odds ratios were extracted. Four random-effects analyses were conducted for the pooled association between paternal and maternal depression: (a) during the prenatal and (b) during the postnatal period, as well as for the prospective relationships between (c) paternal depression and maternal depression at a later timepoint, and (d) vice versa. Models were specified as restricted maximum-likelihood estimation. Heterogeneity was assessed using H 2 and I 2. Funnel plots, the Egger method, and the trim-and-fill test were used to assess publication bias. Sensitivity analyses with and without studies for which we approximated r were conducted. Data synthesis: With substantial heterogeneity, positive associations were found between paternal and maternal depression (a) during pregnancy (r = 0.238), (b) in the postnatal period (r = 0.279), as well as for the prospective relationship between (c) paternal and later maternal depression (r = 0.192), and (d) maternal and later paternal depression (r = 0.208). Conclusion: Paternal depression showed positive correlations with maternal depression across the perinatal period. Given notable methodological and cultural heterogeneity and limitations of individual studies, it was not possible to further identify determining or moderating factors. Increasing evidence for implications of parental depression for child development warrants further scientific attention.