Re: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial
CCBYOpen access
Rapid response to:
Research
Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial
Re: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial
On December 17 members of the COMPare project wrote a rapid response to the REEACT study report alerting us to the fact that only one of two registered primary outcomes was included in the manuscript and that a secondary outcome was not reported. We agree that we should have identified these discrepancies between the registration and the manuscript during our review process. The BMJ is committed to only publishing the results of trials that are prospectively registered and we ask that authors report the registered outcomes: when there is a discrepancy we ask for an explanation. But, as was evident in this case, we sometimes make mistakes.
After receiving the communication from COMPare, we asked the authors for an explanation. They submitted a series of rapid responses, corresponded with us directly and submitted a correction to the paper explaining the discrepancies and clarifying which outcomes were pre-specified. We are satisfied with their response and are convinced about the integrity of the research.
Rapid Response:
Re: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial
On December 17 members of the COMPare project wrote a rapid response to the REEACT study report alerting us to the fact that only one of two registered primary outcomes was included in the manuscript and that a secondary outcome was not reported. We agree that we should have identified these discrepancies between the registration and the manuscript during our review process. The BMJ is committed to only publishing the results of trials that are prospectively registered and we ask that authors report the registered outcomes: when there is a discrepancy we ask for an explanation. But, as was evident in this case, we sometimes make mistakes.
After receiving the communication from COMPare, we asked the authors for an explanation. They submitted a series of rapid responses, corresponded with us directly and submitted a correction to the paper explaining the discrepancies and clarifying which outcomes were pre-specified. We are satisfied with their response and are convinced about the integrity of the research.
Competing interests: No competing interests