Search

Background The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders ( AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD. Methods This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials. Results Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods. Conclusions The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Over the past 60 years, the view that 'alcoholism' is a disease for which the only acceptable goal of treatment is abstinence has given way to the recognition that alcohol use disorders ( AUDs) occur on a continuum of severity, for which a variety of treatment options are appropriate. However, because the available treatments for AUDs are not effective for everyone, more research is needed to develop novel and more efficacious treatments to address the range of AUD severity in diverse populations. Here we offer recommendations for the design and analysis of alcohol treatment trials, with a specific focus on the careful conduct of randomized clinical trials of medications and nonpharmacological interventions for AUDs. Methods This paper provides a narrative review of the quality of published clinical trials and recommendations for the optimal design and analysis of treatment trials for AUDs. Results Despite considerable improvements in the design of alcohol clinical trials over the past 2 decades, many studies of AUD treatments have used faulty design features and statistical methods that are known to produce biased estimates of treatment efficacy. Conclusions The published statistical and methodological literatures provide clear guidance on methods to improve clinical trial design and analysis. Consistent use of state-of-the-art design features and analytic approaches will enhance the internal and external validity of treatment trials for AUDs across the spectrum of severity. The ultimate result of this attention to methodological rigor is that better treatment options will be identified for patients with an AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The effectiveness of two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) for treatment of 14 children, aged 4;0-6;7 years, with phonologically based speech-sound disorder (SSD) has been previously analysed with severity outcome measures (percentage of consonants correct score, percentage occurrence of phonological processes and phonetic inventory). Considering that the ultimate goal of intervention for children with phonologically based SSD is to improve intelligibility, it is curious that intervention studies focusing on children's phonology do not routinely use intelligibility as an outcome measure. It is therefore important that the impact of interventions on speech intelligibility is explored. Aims This paper investigates the effectiveness of the two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) using intelligibility measures, both in single words and in continuous speech, as the primary outcome. Methods & Procedures Fourteen children with phonologically based SSD participated in the intervention. The children were randomly assigned to phonological therapy or articulation therapy (seven children in each group). Two assessment methods were used for measuring intelligibility: a word identification task (for single words) and a rating scale (for continuous speech). Twenty-one unfamiliar adults listened and judged the children's intelligibility. Reliability analyses showed overall high agreement between listeners across both methods. Outcomes & Results Significant improvements were noted in intelligibility in both single words (paired t(6) = 4.409, p = 0.005) and continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 2.371, p = 0.018) for the group receiving phonology therapy pre- to post-treatment, but no differences in intelligibility were found for those receiving the articulation therapy pre- to post-treatment, either for single words (paired t(6) = 1.763, p = 0.128) or continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 1.442, p = 0.149). Conclusions & Implications Intelligibility measures were sensitive enough to show changes in the phonological therapy group but not in the articulation therapy group. These findings emphasize the importance of using intelligibility as an outcome measure to complement the results obtained with other severity measures when exploring the effectiveness of speech interventions. This study presents new evidence for the effectiveness of phonological therapy in improving intelligibility with children with SSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]