Model of integrated mental health video consultations for people with depression or anxiety in primary care (PROVIDE-C): assessor masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Model of integrated mental health video consultations for people with depression or anxiety in primary care (PROVIDE-C): assessor masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
Item: Model of integrated mental health video consultations for people with depression or anxiety in primary care (PROVIDE-C): assessor masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Haun MW, Tönnies J, Hartmann M, Wildenauer A, Wensing M, Szecsenyi J, Feißt M, Pohl M, Vomhof M, Icks A, Friederich HC

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Model of integrated mental health video consultations for people with depression or anxiety in primary care (PROVIDE-C): assessor masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

CitationsUnresolved reference ×3−0.75★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 83 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced4 types

Overstated conclusions3

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported randomised controlled trial with rigorous design, clear ethical approvals, and appropriate statistical methods. Minor reporting gaps include lack of explicit Declaration of Helsinki mention and a few copyedit issues, but these do not undermine the scientific integrity.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional; no divergence. The evaluation covered the full text, with statistics verification limited to 6 recomputable tests (all consistent) and citation check finding 3 references not found in registry (potential fabrication signals).

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 6 tests: 6 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 4 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites a systematic review of co-located care and notes the need for more rigorous RCTs, and mentions prior pilot work (PROVIDE-B). The rationale links the gap in scalable integrated mental health video consultations to the study objective. Limitations of prior research (e.g., conducted in highly regulated environments) are explicitly acknowledged.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“In 2020, the results from a systematic review of 15 studies showed that co-located specialty care was associated with mental health benefits, and concluded that more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed.”