<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 2002136
Psychopharmacological studies usually attempt to eliminate "nonspecific" influences on outcome by double-blind designs. In a randomized, double-blind comparison of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo, the great majority of panic disorder patients (N = 59) and their physicians were able to rate accurately whether active drug or placebo had been given. Moreover, physicians could distinguish between the two types of active drugs. Inasmuch as correct rating was possible halfway through treatment, concerns about the internal validity of the double-blind strategy arise.
Adult, Male, Placebos, Psychotherapy, Imipramine, Alprazolam, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Female, Middle Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Panic
Adult, Male, Placebos, Psychotherapy, Imipramine, Alprazolam, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Female, Middle Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Panic
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 119 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |