Defining Response in Clinical Trials for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Signal Detection Analysis of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale
J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66(12):1549-1557
© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Objective: Many studies of the treatment
of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have used percent reduction cutoffs on the Yale-Brown
Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) to classify patients as treatment responders. However,
reduction criteria have varied from 20% to 50%,
with studies of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using a more stringent criterion than studies
of pharmacotherapy. The aim of this retrospective investigation was to determine optimal
YBOCS reduction criteria for classifying patients as
Method: Data from 87 adult clinic and
research outpatients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for OCD according to structured interview
were examined, comparing the percent YBOCS reduction from pretreatment to posttreatment with
2 "gold standard" criteria from the Clinical
Global Impressions (CGI) scale: much or very much
improved and mild illness or better. Signal
detection analyses were used to determine the
sensitivity, specificity, predictive value of a positive test,
predictive value of a negative test, and efficiency
of various YBOCS reduction cutoffs.
Results: A YBOCS reduction cutoff of
30% was optimal for predicting improvement on the CGI. The 20% cutoff used by many
pharmacologic studies resulted in a high number of
false positives, whereas the 50% cutoff used by
most CBT studies resulted in a high number of
false negatives. For predicting mild illness or better
at posttreatment, a YBOCS reduction cutoff of 40% to 50% was optimal.
Conclusions: A YBOCS reduction criterion
of 30% appears to be optimal for determining clinical improvement, whereas a 40% to 50%
reduction criterion is appropriate for predicting
mild illness at posttreatment. Future studies
should employ a standard definition of treatment
response in order to facilitate cross-study