[Summary text]
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label: YES
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
family CBT Group format
family CBT individual format
Waitlist
Included criteria: Subjects aged between 7-17Primary OCD diagnosis on the basis of DSM-IV.Subjects receiving concurrent psychopharmacological treatment were required to have remained on the same medication for at least a 3-month period and were required to maintain this medication over the course of treatment. IQ supspected to be within the normal range. One parent willing to attende weekly sessions.
Excluded criteria: Primary major depression or another primary anxiety disorder, primary externalizing disorder (including ADHD, oppositional, defiant disorder or conduct disorder), Tourette's syndrome, autistic spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, organic mental disorder or mental retardation. Subjects receiving concurrent psychotherapy.
Pretreatment: No significant differences across groups on any of the sociodemohraphic or pretreatment variables.
Intervention Characteristics
family CBT Group format
family CBT individual format
Waitlist
CYBOCS symptomscore End of Treatment
Remission ( <10 CYBOCS) ed of treatment
Sponsorship source: National Health and Medical Research Council Grant.
Country: Australia
Setting: University clinic
Comments:
Authors name: Paula Barrett
Institution: School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University
Email: p.barret@griffith.edu.au
Address: Mount Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 17:03
Study Design
3 arms:Individual family CBTGroup family CBTwaitlist
Hjalti Jonsson on 23/08/2015 23:48
Baseline Characteristics
Mean age, yr (SD)
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 10/09/2015 22:41
Dichotomous Outcomes
ADIS score parents not fullfilling criteria for OCD diagnosis
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label: YES
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
family CBT
Relaxation Training
Included criteria:
Excluded criteria:
Pretreatment: The two treatment groups did not differ on any parent or child baseline characteristics.
Intervention Characteristics
family CBT
Relaxation Training
CYBOCS symptomscore End of Treatment
Symptomscore min 30 % reduktion i CYBOCS end of treatment
Sponsorship source: National Institut of Mental Health (R21 MH079217).
Country: USA
Setting: Child anxiety disorders speciality clinic within an academic medical center.
Comments:
Authors name: Jennifer B. Freeman
Institution: The Bradley Hasbro Children's Research Center.
Email: jennifer_freeman@brown.edu
Address: Core West, 2nd Floor, 1 Hoppin Street, Providence, RI 02903
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 17:58
Continuous Outcomes
Intention to Treat groupcompleter analysis:CBT: n: 16CYBOCS: mean 11.50, SD: 7.68RT: n:15CYBOCS: mean:16.87, SD: 8.22
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 10/09/2015 21:00
Dichotomous Outcomes
reduktion i symptomsscore målt på antal af n som havde <13 efter behandling
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label: YES
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
Family-based Exposure/Response Prevention (E/RP)
TAU
Included criteria: Inclusion required: (1) Clinician diagnosis of primary OCD with diagnoses verified by administration of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (ADIS) - Child and Parent Versions (Silverman & Albano,1996) 2) clinical severity rating > 4; CYBOCS >16 (or CYBOCS Compulsions scale of > 8); 3) between ages of 3-8 years inclusive; 4) commitment of consistent parent to attend all sessionsFor youth on established pharmacotherapy, 8 weeks stability at current dose was required for SSRIs and 6 weeks for other medications. For newly initiatedpharmacotherapy, 12 weeks stability for SSRIs and 8 weeks for other mediations was required.
Excluded criteria: (1) the presence of psychiatric illness that contraindicated study participation, e.g., autism; (2) IQ < 85; (3) non-English speaking or absence of language; (4) history of E/RP; (5) a recent change in psychotropic medication; or (6) concurrent psychotherapy or other behavioral interventions. Children randomizedto TAU were allowed to make medication changesfollowing randomization.
Pretreatment: Pretreatment expectations for treatment outcome were slightly higher among parents randomized to E/RP vs. TAU (p = .04)There were no groupdifferences at baseline on any primary or secondary outcomes (seeTable 2).
Intervention Characteristics
Family-based Exposure/Response Prevention (E/RP)
TAU
CYBOCS symptomscore End of Treatment
Family Accomodation Scale: Længste Followup
Symptomscore (min 30% reduktion i CYBOCS)
Sponsorship source: Study was sponsored by a University of South Florida ResearchCounsel New Researcher Grant to Dr. Lewin.
Country: USA
Setting: University clinic
Comments:
Authors name: Adam B. Lewin
Institution: University of South Florida
Email: alewin@health.usf.edu
Address: USF Dept. of Pediatrics, Rothman Center for Neuropsychiatry,880 6th Street South Suite 460 Box 7523, Child Development & RehabilitationCenter, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA.
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 18:06
Continuous Outcomes
FAS measurred by FA Measure of Family Accommodation, follow up data just available for treatment group. Data from post treatement for both groups
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label:
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
family CBT
PRT
Included criteria: Participants 8 through 17 years.Inclusion criteria included the following: a prirnary DSM -IV diagnosis af OCD24; a CYBOCS total score >15; an IQ >70; and freedom from use af any psychotropic medication for OCD at study entry.
Excluded criteria: Participants were excluded if they met criteria for any psychiatric illness that contraindicated study participation, including suicidality, psychosis, pervasive developmental disorder, mania, or substance dependence
Pretreatment: No differences in demographic or clinical data.
Intervention Characteristics
family CBT
PRT
CYBOCS symptomscore End of Treatment
Family Accomodation Scale: Længste Followup
Social funktionsevne: Længste Follow-up
Remission Symptomscore (CYBOCS: ≤9) End of Treatment
Sponsorship source: Disclosures: Dr. Piacentini has received grant support from the National lnstitute af Mental Health INIMHI, the Tourette Syndrome Association (TSA), and the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation. He has received royalties from Oxford Universily Press, including the manuals described in this paper, Guilford Press, and theAmericon Psychological Association. He has served on the speakers' bureau for the TSA. Hehas served osa consultanl toBeyerSchering Phormo.Dr.Bergman has received research support from the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression INARSAD). Dr. Chong has received grant support from NIMH and the TSA. She has served on the speakers' bureau for the TSA. She hos received royalties from Oxford University Press. Dr. Langley hos received research support from NIMH ond the Substonce Abuse ond Mental Heolth Services Administration . She has received royalties from Oxford University Press for the manuals described in this poper. Dr. Peris has received research support from NIMH and NARSAD . Dr. Wood hos received grant support from NIMH, the Orgonizotion for Autism Research, and Autism Speaks. He hos received royalties from WW Norton ond Company . Dr. McCrocken hos received research support from NIMH, Bristof.Myers Squibb, Asped , ond Seoside Pharmoceuticals . She has served as o consultant to Novophorm ond BloMorin . She has served on the speakers' bureau for the TSA, Veritos, ond CME Outfitters.
Country: USA, State of California
Setting: University of California + Participants were recruited from a pediatric OCD specialty clinic at a major university medical center
Comments:
Authors name: John Piacentini, R. Lindsey Bergman, Susanna Chang, Audra Langley, Tara Peris, , Jeffrey J. Wood, James McCracken,
Institution: UCLA Semel lnstitute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior
Email: jpiacentini@mednet.ucla.edu
Address: UCLA Semel lnstitute, 760 Westwood Blvd, Room 6B-25 l , los Angela. CA 90024
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 17:26
Continuous Outcomes
social funktionsevne målt på COIS-RC Child Obsessive Compulsive Impact Scale—Revised Child-Report;ingen SD angivetConfidence Intervaller:family CBT: CYBOCS: 13.3 (10.7–15.9)FAS: 9.3 (6.4–12.2) COIS: 5.6 (3.3–8.0) PRT:CYBOCS: 17.2 (13.0–21.4)FAS: 15.2 (10.5–19.9)COIS: 14.3 (8.0–20.6)
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 17:34
Study Design
psychoeducation and relaxation therapy
Birgitte Holm Petersen on 15/08/2015 17:40
Dichotomous Outcomes
Remitted defined as 0–10 CYBOCS at end of treatment
Morten Fenger on 10/09/2015 17:57
Continuous Outcomes
I outcome Social funktionsevne: længste follow-up er der to versioner af samme måleinstrument COIS-RC for den OCD-ramte unge (C=child) og COIS-RP for forældrene (P=parent). Jeg har sat værdierne ind for COIS-RC.Der oplyses ikke SD for outcome på CYBOCS, COIS-RC og FAS-PR. Men derimod CI.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label:
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
family CBT
Individual CBT
Included criteria: Inclusion criteria were as follows: age 12-17 years; met criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistica/ Manual of Mental Dis- orders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994); and if on medication, stable for 6 weeks
Excluded criteria: Exclusion criteria were as follows: a diagnosis of psychosis or bipolar disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, IQ below 70, not living with parent or adult caregiver. Randomization was concealed and minimized by site (Norfolk or Suffolk, United Kingdom) and participant age (14 years and below, 15 years and over).
Pretreatment: No differences in demographic or in clinical data.
Intervention Characteristics
family CBT
Individual CBT
CYBOCS symptomscore End of Treatment
Remission (CYBOCS <10) end of treatment
Dropout
Symptomscore min 30% reduktion i CYBOCS end of treatment
Symptomscore min 30% reduktion i CYBOCS længste follow-up
Sponsorship source: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit program (Grant Reference: PB-PG-0706-10128). Peter E. Langdon is funded by an NIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Country: United Kingdom
Setting: Universities in UK/ CBT was delivered in routine National Health Service (NHS) services by six clinicians
Comments:
Authors name: Shirley A. Reynolds
Institution: Charlie Waller Institute, University of ReadingChal
Email: s.a.reynolds@reading.ac.uk
Address: Charlie Waller InstituteSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AL, United Kingdom
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong study design
Wrong study design
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomised sequence
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants and personnel during the study
Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors
Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data
Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table
Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine wether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, during, enrolement.
-
-
-
-
-
Describe all measures used, if any to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.
-
Describe all measures used, if any to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.
-
-
Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exlusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomized participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re-inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors.
-
State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors and what was found.
-
State any important concerns about bias not addressed in the other domains in the tool. If particular questions/entries were re-specified in the review's protocol, responses should be provided for each question/entry.
-
-
-