10002276 J Clin Psychiatry / Document Archive

Psychiatrist.com Home    Keyword Search

Close [X]

Search Our Sites

Enter search terms below (keywords, titles, authors, or subjects). Then select a category to search and press the Search button. All words are assumed to be required. To search for an exact phrase, put it in quotes. To exclude a term, precede it with a minus sign (-).

Keyword search:

Choose a category:

Choosing the appropriate category will greatly improve your chances of finding the best match.

All files at our sites: J Clin Psychiatry, Primary Care Companion, CME Institute, and MedFair

Search materials from our journals:

Abstracts from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements

PDFs of the full text of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements (Net Society Platinum [paid subscribers])

PDFs of the full text of The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1999–present

Search CME offerings:

CME Institute, including CME from journals , supplements, and Web activities for instant CME credit (Net Society Gold [registered users]); also includes information about our CME program

CME activities from regular issues of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])

CME Supplements from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])


The article you requested is

Defining Response in Clinical Trials for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Signal Detection Analysis of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale.

J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66:1549-1557
Copyright 2005 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

To view this item, select one of the options below.

    1. Purchase this PDF for $40
      If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
      (You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
    2. Subscribe
      Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP print + online for $166 individual.
      JCP's 75th AnniversaryCelebrate!
      Celebrate JCP's 75th Anniversary with a special online-only subscription price of $75.
    1. Activate
      If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
    2. Sign in
      As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
  1. Did you forget your password?

Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send an 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 responders.

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 comparisons.