Skip to main content
Full access
Letters to the Editor
Published Online: 1 May 2016

Selection Bias Effects on RAISE-ETP Results

To the Editor: The Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP), described by Kane and colleagues in the April 2016 issue of the Journal (1), represents a serious effort to address a significant area of unmet need in the treatment of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, equally serious methodological flaws mean that the authors’ conclusion that RAISE-ETP improved outcomes cannot be relied upon.
The simplest explanation for the results is that there were substantial differences in the patients entering treatment and control groups. Supplemental material shows that 512 patients were screened at the treatment sites (272 eligible, 240 excluded), while 795 patients were screened at control sites (231 eligible, 564 excluded). The ratio of eligible to excluded patients was 113% at treatment sites and was 40% at control sites. Either the populations from which the treatment and control groups were selected were radically different, or the selection procedures were radically different. It is surprising the article does not consider the possibility of selection bias.
Given the importance of duration of untreated psychosis in their rationale and analysis, it is also surprising the authors do not refer to the Treatment and Intervention in Psychosis study (TIPS) (2), the gold standard. TIPS was shown to successfully reduce the duration of untreated psychosis of Scandinavian patients from 26 weeks to 5 weeks by early response teams and public health interventions (2). At 10-year follow-up, there was no difference on original outcome measures, suggesting that associations between long durations of untreated psychosis and poor outcomes are not because delays in treatment predict poorer outcomes, but because patients with more severe forms of illness take longer to access care.
While Kane et al. note that there was no statistical difference in the duration of untreated psychosis (1), the mean duration of untreated psychosis in the control group was 33 weeks longer than it was in the treatment group. Given the large standard deviation, as well as the large difference in the mean duration of untreated psychosis (211 weeks for the control group compared with 178 weeks for the treatment group) and in the median duration of untreated psychosis (88 weeks for the control group compared with 66 weeks for the treatment group), the lack of statistical significance is likely due to a combination of questionable test selection and inadequate power. The combination of clear selection bias demonstrated by participant flowcharts and greater duration of untreated psychosis in the control group suggests that the reason the treatment group did relatively better over 2 years was because there was a bias toward selecting patients with a worse prognosis in the control areas.
With respect to possible sources of bias, it is interesting that while Kane et al. state unequivocally that no clinics withdrew from the study after randomization (1), in their study design article they report that two sites were dropped after randomization and initial training, with another site added (3).

References

1.
Kane JM, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, et al: Comprehensive versus usual community care for first-episode psychosis: 2-year outcomes from the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. Am J Psychiatry 2016; 173:362–372
2.
Hegelstad WT, Larsen TK, Auestad B, et al: Long-term follow-up of the TIPS early detection in psychosis study: effects on 10-year outcome. Am J Psychiatry 2012; 169:374–380
3.
Kane JM, Schooler NR, Marcy P, et al: The RAISE early treatment program for first-episode psychosis: background, rationale, and study design. J Clin Psychiatry 2015; 76:240–246

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 535
PubMed: 27133409

History

Accepted: February 2016
Published online: 1 May 2016
Published in print: May 01, 2016

Authors

Details

Andrew James Amos, M.B.B.S., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P.
From the School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Australia.

Funding Information

The author reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share