ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2010
Principle standards and problems regarding proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmacology.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Brief examination of psychopharmacology.Journal of basic and clinical pharmacy · 2013Article
- Standardized diagnostic interviews, criteria, and algorithms for mental disorders: garbage in, garbage out.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
- Ethics of clinical research with mentally ill persons.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
- How close is evidence to truth in evidence-based treatment of mental disorders?European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
- Critical trial-related criteria in acute schizophrenia studies.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
- General and comparative efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants in the acute treatment of depressive disorders: a report by the WPA section of pharmacopsychiatry.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2011Article
- Validity of the definite and semidefinite questionnaire version of the Hamilton Depression Scale, the Hamilton Subscale and the Melancholia Scale. Part I.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2011Article
- Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proof of efficacy of a psychotropic medicinal product is the key point of clinical psychopharmacology. This especially concerns the licensing of a new compound, but apart from this special case, lots of efficacy questions need to be answered in clinical psychopharmacology, such as, e.g. the question of the efficacy of a combination therapy. The methodology of the scientific proof of efficacy has already had a long tradition and has been developed further in the recent past under different aspects. Especially the double-blind randomised parallel group comparison has been developed as a design of highest methodological standard. However, often designs have their place and justification under certain conditions and in relation to certain questions. Although in the recent past, with the over-emphasis of so-called effectiveness studies, the inherent methodological limitations of these studies have not been addressed properly (Möller in Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 258:257-270, 2008), which in consequence devaluated the scientific merits of the classical double-blind randomised control group study designs in the view of those colleagues, who are not that experienced in study design issues. Therefore, it seems to be timely and necessary to review the principle standards and problems concerning the proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmacology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19888620What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.