Assessment and diagnosis of XXXX in non-pharmacological intervention studies.

@entity1 @entity146 @entity22
A number of non-pharmacologic interventions have been developed and studied for the treatment of primary @entity22 in adults. Fifty-four non-pharmacological intervention studies published over the last 20 years were reviewed to determine how primary @entity22 was assessed and to characterize @entity1 participating in the studies. The main objectives were to inform clinicians who look to the literature for information on the treatment of @entity22 about selection and diagnosis of @entity1 , and to examine differences between clinic-based and research-based studies. Mean age for all @entity1 was 47 years; 65% were @entity1 . Studies typically used interview procedures to assess @entity1 . The most common exclusion criteria overall was @entity22 secondary to medical illness or @entity146 . Methods for assessing these criteria varied widely across studies. Inclusion most commonly required a 6-month duration of @entity22 , and sleep difficulty at least 3 nights per week. There were significant differences between clinic- and research-based studies in the screening assessments, exclusion criteria, and @entity1 drop-out rate. The heterogeneity in assessment and diagnosis complicates comparison across studies. Some studies were more likely to include severe @entity22 sufferers and/or individuals with secondary @entity22 . Comprehensive assessment and complete reporting of research methods is essential to determining the relative efficacy and clinical utility of interventions. Clinicians should be aware of the differences across studies from research vs. clinical settings. To enhance the generalizability of research-based studies to clinical practice, careful screening and description of study @entity1 is essential. When @entity1 are well-described, research-based studies can be useful and informative to clinicians.
