Characteristics of Included Meta-Analyses.

<p>Characteristics of Included Meta-Analyses.</p

Flow Diagram of Selection of Primary Studies and Meta-analyses that Evaluated the Diagnostic Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools.

<p>Flow Diagram of Selection of Primary Studies and Meta-analyses that Evaluated the Diagnostic Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools.</p

Transparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the <i>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</i>

<div><p>Background</p><p>Confidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The <i>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</i> (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Eligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013–2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.</p></div

Article Selection.

<p>Article Selection.</p

Outcome Analysis Declaration in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials in JCCP.

<p>Outcome Analysis Declaration in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials in JCCP.</p

Comparison of sexual impairment rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.

<p>Comparison of sexual impairment rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.</p

MIMIC Model of the CES-D.

<p>MIMIC Model of the CES-D.</p

Comparison of FSFI domain scores between sexually active women with systemic sclerosis Patients and sexually active women from a UK general population sample; unadjusted and adjusted for total FSFI score.

<p>(CSRG Sample: N = 296; UK Sample: N = 956).</p

An Assessment of the Measurement Equivalence of English and French Versions of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale in Systemic Sclerosis

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale scores in English- and French-speaking Canadian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients are commonly pooled in analyses, but no studies have evaluated the metric equivalence of the English and French CES-D. The study objective was to examine the metric equivalence of the CES-D in English- and French-speaking SSc patients.</p><p>Methods</p><p>The CES-D was completed by 1007 English-speaking and 248 French-speaking patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure in both samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess differential item functioning (DIF).</p><p>Results</p><p>A two-factor model (Positive and Negative affect) showed excellent fit in both samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for 3 of 20 CES-D items, including items 3 (<i>Blues</i>), 10 (<i>Fearful</i>), and 11 (<i>Sleep</i>). Prior to accounting for DIF, French-speaking patients had 0.08 of a standard deviation (SD) lower latent scores for the Positive factor (95% confidence interval [CI]−0.25 to 0.08) and 0.09 SD higher scores (95% CI−0.07 to 0.24) for the Negative factor than English-speaking patients. After DIF correction, there was no change on the Positive factor and a non-significant increase of 0.04 SD on the Negative factor for French-speaking patients (difference = 0.13 SD, 95% CI−0.03 to 0.28).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The English and French versions of the CES-D, despite minor DIF on several items, are substantively equivalent and can be used in studies that combine data from English- and French-speaking Canadian SSc patients.</p></div

Correlations of FSFI domain scores with sexual satisfaction scores among sexually active women with systemic sclerosis and sexually active women from a UK general population sample.

<p>Correlations of FSFI domain scores with sexual satisfaction scores among sexually active women with systemic sclerosis and sexually active women from a UK general population sample.</p