Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Short-Term Course of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
There is an understandable concern that obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may worsen during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there are little empirical data. We report the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the short-term course of OCD. A cohort of patients with a primary diagnosis of OCD ( n = 240) who were on regular follow-up at a tertiary care specialty OCD clinic in India were assessed telephonically, about 2 months after the declaration of the pandemic (“pandemic” cohort). Data from the medical records of an independent set of patients with OCD ( n = 207) who were followed up during the same period, 1 year prior, was used for comparison (historical controls). The pandemic group and historical controls did not differ in the trajectories of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores (chi-square likelihood ratio test of the group × time interaction = 2.73, p = 0.255) and relapse rate (21% vs. 20%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–1.59; p = 0.535). Preexisting contamination symptoms and COVID-19–related health anxiety measured by the COVID-Threat Scale did not predict relapse. Only a small proportion of patients (6%) reported COVID-19–themed obsessive-compulsive symptoms. The COVID-19 pandemic, at least in the short run, did not influence the course of illness.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study.
Consent: Patients of the ‘pandemic’ OCD cohort gave consent orally during the telephonic interview.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis: We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study.
Consent: Patients of the ‘pandemic’ OCD cohort gave consent orally during the telephonic interview.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis: We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Strengths and Limitations: There are several strengths to this study. Our sample was largely on stable medications in the preceding 12 weeks, which suggests that treatment changes did not confound our results. Sample size was reasonably large and all the participants were assessed using standard tools. The availability of a historical control group followed up during the same period, the previous year (i.e., 2018–2019) helped ascertain that relapses in the OCD pandemic group were perhaps not due to COVID–19 but a function of the natural course of the illness. Findings of our study have to be interpreted in the light of some obvious limitations. Although the patients whom we could not assess were no different from the ones we could, it is quite possible that a bias may have crept in to the response pattern. Because of the strict lockdown, we performed assessments telephonically; it is possible that some of the responses on measures such as the CTS and the WSAS may have been influenced by the pattern of reading out the items and recording the responses. The YBOCS assessments may not have been affected much by the method of interviewing since the instrument is clinician–administered and the patients had been previously exposed to the measure and were familiar with it. Although the treatment adherence rate is high, we could not corroborate this by interviewing a relative or caregiver, which is the usual practice in our clinic. We assessed patients about 2 months after declaration...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Na…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Strengths and Limitations There are several strengths to this study. Our sample was largely on stable medications in the preceding 12 weeks, which suggests that treatment changes did not confound our results. Sample size was reasonably large and all the participants were assessed using standard tools. The availability of a historical control group followed up during the same period, the previous year (i.e., 2018–2019) helped ascertain that relapses in the OCD pandemic group were perhaps not due to COVID–19 but a function of the natural course of the illness. Findings of our study have to be interpreted in the light of some obvious limitations. Although the patients whom we could not assess were no different from the ones we could, it is quite possible that a bias may have crept in to the response pattern. Because of the strict lockdown, we performed assessments telephonically; it is possible that some of the responses on measures such as the CTS and the WSAS may have been influenced by the pattern of reading out the items and recording the responses. The YBOCS assessments may not have been affected much by the method of interviewing since the instrument is clinician–administered and the patients had been previously exposed to the measure and were familiar with it. Although the treatment adherence rate is high, we could not corroborate this by interviewing a relative or caregiver, which is the usual practice in our clinic. We assessed patients about 2 months after declaration of the pandemic by the WHO which is perhaps a relatively short period to study its impact. In summary, the course of OCD, at least in the short term, does not appear to be significantly different from the usual course of illness in our sample. It is heartening that relapse rates have not increased in the context of this pandemic. These findings must be interpreted in light of the limitations stated above. Following up on our OCD ‘pandemic’ cohort over this year may help us understand the long-term impact of COVID–19.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Na…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement The Ethics Committee of the NIMHANS approved the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Strengths and Limitations There are several strengths to this study. Our sample was largely on stable medications in the preceding 12 weeks, which suggests that treatment changes did not confound our results. Sample size was reasonably large and all the participants were assessed using standard tools. The availability of a historical control group followed up during the same period, the previous year (i.e., 2018–2019) helped ascertain that relapses in the OCD pandemic group were perhaps not due to COVID–19 but a function of the natural course of the illness. Findings of our study have to be interpreted in the light of some obvious limitations. Although the patients whom we could not assess were no different from the ones we could, it is quite possible that a bias may have crept in to the response pattern. Because of the strict lockdown, we performed assessments telephonically; it is possible that some of the responses on measures such as the CTS and the WSAS may have been influenced by the pattern of reading out the items and recording the responses. The YBOCS assessments may not have been affected much by the method of interviewing since the instrument is clinician–administered and the patients had been previously exposed to the measure and were familiar with it. Although the treatment adherence rate is high, we could not corroborate this by interviewing a relative or caregiver, which is the usual practice in our clinic. We assessed patients about 2 months after declaration of the pandemic by the WHO which is perhaps a relatively short period to study its impact. In summary, the course of OCD, at least in the short term, does not appear to be significantly different from the usual course of illness in our sample. It is heartening that relapse rates have not increased in the context of this pandemic. These findings must be interpreted in light of the limitations stated above. Following up on our OCD ‘pandemic’ cohort over this year may help us understand the long-term impact of COVID–19.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement SB is currently supported by the Accelerator Program for Discovery in Brain disorders using Stem cells (ADBS), which is funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India Funding Sources This study was done as non-funded research approved by the NIMHANS Institute Ethics Committee, and is not in any way related to any of the other funded research programs stated above. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.26.20162495: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement SB is currently supported by the Accelerator Program for Discovery in Brain disorders using Stem cells (ADBS), which is funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India Funding Sources This study was done as non-funded research approved by the NIMHANS Institute Ethics Committee, and is not in any way related to any of the other funded research programs stated above. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical Analysis We calculated the power of our study using the software G*Power version 3.1(Erdfelder et al., 2009). G*Powersuggested: (G*Power, SCR_013726)Data from additional tools added to each annotation on a weekly basis.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
