[ROM for the elderly: a prospective cohort study of the outcomes on the HoNOS 65+ in various diagnostic groups]. / ROM bij ouderen: een prospectief cohortonderzoek naar de uitkomsten op de HoNOS 65+ bij verschillende diagnosegroepen.

BACKGROUND: Routine outcome monitoring (rom) provides us with opportunities to study treatment outcome in daily clinical practice and to learn from the results.
AIM: To assess the changes that occur in the psychological and social functioning of patients in geriatric psychiatry who are suffering from substance dependence, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, psychotic disorder, or personality disorder.
METHOD: We analysed data relating to 1,810 patients (aged 60-101) from nine mental health care organisations that together form SynQuest cv. The total scores and item scores on the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for older people (Honos 65+) at the beginning and end of treatment were also analysed and were linked to the diagnosis.
RESULTS: Patients improved significantly (es=0.8). The degree of improvement depended on the patient's principal diagnosis; patients with a mood or anxiety disorder improved the most (es=1.0 and 0.8). The degree of improvement varied per Honos 65+ item. In particular, patients with 'depressive problems' and 'other mental and behavioral problems' showed considerable improvement.
CONCLUSION: Many older patients benefited from the treatment they received in gerontopsychiatry departments. This helps to give elderly patients with psychiatric disorders hope for the future. The scores on the individual items of the Honos 65+ can help clinicians to tailor treatment to the patient's specific problems and to monitor and evaluate treatment outcome in conjunction with the patient.

[The importance of equivalence trials in showing the usefulness of treatments]. / Het belang van equivalentieonderzoek om de waarde van behandelingen aan te tonen.

There are different kinds of randomised controlled trials: trials in which the superiority of a treatment can be demonstrated (superiority trials) and trials in which the equal efficacy of two treatments can be shown (equivalence trials). The main reason for performing an equivalence trial is that for many diseases and disorders an effective treatment already exists. Equivalence trials are appropriate when a new treatment offers some advantages over an existing treatment (less cost, greater safety, improved convenience or freedom of choice for the patient), in addition to the expected equal therapeutic effectiveness. The design of equivalence trials is to a large extent comparable to that of superiority trials, but there are some methodological differences. In equivalence trials, the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are interchanged, compared to superiority trials. In equivalence trials, an equivalence margin is defined for the different treatments. Clinical professionals decide on the equivalence margin beforehand on the basis of the clinical relevance. To demonstrate equivalence, the confidence interval of the difference between two treatments must lie completely within the equivalence margin. In equivalence trials, there are usually more patients needed: the smaller the equivalence margin, the more patients are needed. In equivalence trials, both per-protocol analyses and intention-to-treat analyses should be used to prove the equal therapeutic effectiveness of the treatments under study.