A counterfactual model is developed to represent the selection process explicitly. This simple extension of the standard counterfactual model is used to explore the implications of restrictive exclusion criteria intended to eliminate high-risk individuals.
Eligibility was assessed by stepwise application of commonly used exclusion criteria. Influence of eligibility on treatment outcome was investigated in a subsample of the 1653 patients who had at least one follow-up assessment (n = 626). Eligible and non-eligible patients were compared on proportion of response (50% reduction) and remission on MADRS
Background characteristics were compared between male respondents on the first questionnaire (n = 92,802), eligible subjects among them (n = 18,570) and those randomised (n = 10,627) and Statistics Netherlands 2002-2005 (SN) (n = 5289) or GLOBE study-data (Dutch cohort) (n = 696).
We applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of GAD pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with past 12 months GAD (n = 894), and to a subgroup of participants seeking treatment (n = 329). Our aim was to assess how many participants with GAD would fulfil typical eligibility criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria from each trial were applied to data on the population of people with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes living in Scotland in 2008 (n = 180,590) in a population-based cross-sectional study and the number and proportion of people eligible for each trial was determined.
Investigated the influence of exclusion criteria on symptom outcome by multivariate regression models in a sample of patients suffering from MDD according to the MINIplus from a routine clinical practice setting
Patients were evaluated against the most common RCT exclusion criteria personality disorder, high suicide risk, cognitive impairment, psychosis, alcohol or substance abuse or dependency, bi-polar depression
Applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of SAD. They aim to assess how many participants with SAD would fulfill typical eligibility criteria.
Applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BPD. The aim was to assess how many participants with BPD would not fulfill typical eligibility criteria.
Applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PTSD in the previous 12 months (n = 1,715) and then to a subsample of participants seeking treatment (n = 366). Our aim was to assess how many participants with PTSD would fulfill typical eligibility criteria.
We use a case study to illustrate how to generalize treatment effect estimates from a randomized trial sample to a target population, in particular comparing the sample of children in a randomized trial of a supplemental program for Head Start centers (
To assess the generalizability of adolescent clinical trials for MDD, we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of clinical trials to all adolescents in the National Comorbidity Survey
Based on eligibility criteria as described in registration trials of vemurafenib (Vem) and ipilimumab (Ipi), we classified patients into trial-eligible and ineligible and those treated and untreated with these agents
The current two-part study examined (1) the currently applied eligibility criteria in Phase II and III RCTs examining sleep medication; (2) how these criteria match with the insomnia population as a whole; and (3) how inclusion rates can be changed by an adaptation of these criteria.
Utilized an anonymised case register to determine if participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a novel psychosocial health intervention aiming to improve physical health in SMI had similar severity of illness to eligible non-participants