Is it easier to find what you are looking for if you think you know what it looks like?

Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 121-125

  Mundt, James C ^a   Greist, John H ^a   Jefferson, James W ^a   Katzelnick, David J ^a   DeBrota, David J ^b   Chappell, Phillip B ^c   Modell, Jack G ^d  

^a Healthcare Technology Systems Inc   (United States)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^c PFIZER INC   (United States)

^d GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; DULOXETINE; FLUOXETINE; PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; AUTOANALYSIS; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DEPRESSION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; EFFECT SIZE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HAMILTON SCALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; SCIENCE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOCIAL PHOBIA; VALIDITY;

ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; DEPRESSION; DRUG APPROVAL; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 34247161880     PISSN: 02710749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3180387820     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56-62.
2. Fava M, Evins AE, Dorer DJ, et al. The problem of the placebo response in clinical trials for psychiatric disorders: culprits, possible remedies, and a novel study design approach. Psychother Psychosom. 2003;72:115-127.
3. Greist JH, Mundt JC, Kobak KA. Factors contributing to failed trials of new agents: can technology prevent some problems? J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 2):8-13.
4. Slack WV, Hicks GP, Reed CE, et al. A computer-based medical-history system. N Engl J Med. 1966;284(4):194-198.
5. Kobak KA, Mundt JC, Greist JH, et al. Computer assessment of depression: automating the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Drug Inf J. 2000;34(1):145-156.
6. Lambert MJ, Hatch DR, Kingston MD, et al. Zung, Beck, and the Hamilton rating scales as measures of treatment outcome: a meta-analytic comparison. J Clin Consult Psych. 1986;54:54-59.
7. DeBrota DJ, Demitrack MA, Landin R, et al. A comparison between interactive voice response system-administered HAM-D and clinician-administered HAM-D in patients with major depressive episode. Paper presented at: 39th Annual Meeting, New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit; June 1-4, 1999, Boca Raton, FL.
8. Demitrack MA, Faries D, DeBrota D, et al. The problem of measurement error in multisite clinical trials. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33:513.
9. Greenberg RP, Greenberg MD, Bornstein RF, et al. A meta-analysis of antidepressant outcome under "blinder" conditions. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60:664-669.
10. Petkova E, Quitkin FM, McGrath PJ, et al. A method to quantify rater bias in antidepressant trials. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000; 22(6): 559-565.
11. Rayamajhi J, DeBrota D, Greist J, et al. A comparison between interactive voice response system and clinician administration of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Paper presented at: 42nd Annual Meeting, New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit; June 10-13, 2002; Boca Raton, FL.
12. Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Warner G, et al. St. John's wort versus placebo in social phobia: results from a placebo-controlled pilot study. J Clin Pscyhopharmacol. 2005;25(1):51-58.
13. Quinn J, Moore M, Benson DF, et al. A videotaped CIBIC for dementia patients: validity and reliability in a simulated clinical trial. Neurology. 2002;58(3):433-437.
14. Parker G, Anderson IM, Haddad P. Clinical trials of antidepressant medications are producing meaningless results. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:102-104.
15. Butcher JN, Perry J, Hahn J. Computers in clinical assessment: historical developments, present status, and future challenges. J Clin Psychol. 2004;60(3):331-345.