Innovations In Clinical Neuroscience

MAR-APR 2017

A peer-reviewed, evidence-based journal for clinicians in the field of neuroscience

Issue link: http://innovationscns.epubxp.com/i/822795

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 22 of 45

Innovations in CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE [ V O L U M E 1 4 , N U M B E R 3 – 4 , M A R C H – A P R I L 2 0 1 7 ] 23 REFERENCES 1. FDA Guidance for Industry. Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: Prospective Assessment of Occurrence in Clinical Trials, 2012. US Food and Drug Administration site. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/. ../Guidances/UCM225130.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016. 2. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4:561–571. 3. Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Psychol. 1967;6:278. 4. Posner K, Brent D, Lucas C, et al. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), 2009. The Columbia Lighthouse Project site. http://cssrs.columbia.edu/the- columbia-scale-c-ssrs/about-the- scale/. Accessed 14 April 2016. 5. Mundt JC, Greist JH, Gelenberg AJ, et al. Feasibility and validation of a computer-automated Columbia- Suicide Severity Rating Scale using interactive voice response technology. J Psychiatr Res. 2010;44(16):1224– 1228. 6. Greist JH, Mundt JC, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Predictive value of baseline electronic Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (eC-SSRS) assessments for identifying risk of prospective reports of suicidal behavior during research participation. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2014;11(9-10):23–31. 7. Greist JH, Gustafson DH, Stauss FF, et al. A computer interview for suicide- risk prediction. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(12):1327–1332. 8. Hesdorffer DC, French JA, Posner K, et al. Suicidal ideation and behavior screening in intractable focal epilepsy eligible for drug trials. Epilepsia. 2013;54(5):879–887. 9. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health. 2009;12(4):419–429. 10. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper- and-pencil administration of patient- reported outcome measures: a meta- analytic review. Value in Health. 2008;11(2):322–333. 11. Eremenco S, Coons SJ, Paty J, et al. PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health. 2014;17(5):501–516. 12. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychologic Bull. 1979;86:420–428. 13. Fredricks GA, Nelsen RB. On the relationship between Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau for pairs of continuous random variables. J Stat Plan Inference. 2007;137(7):2143– 2150. 14. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, et al. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18(5):979–992. 15. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley, 1973. 16. Posner K, Oquendo MA, Gould M, et al. Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA): classification of suicidal events in the FDA's pediatric suicidal risk analysis of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(7):1035–1043.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Innovations In Clinical Neuroscience - MAR-APR 2017