Posted by SLS on July 21, 2006, at 19:57:40
In reply to Re: couldn't have said it better myself, posted by Kon on July 21, 2006, at 18:59:59
Hi Kon.
Thanks for the link and references! I wish I could read it all.
I have not yet been terribly impressed with the authors' use of the works of others. It doesn't seem that they review them thoroughly enough. They also like to take snippets out of context as they have done with the works of Quitken et. al.
I found it interesting that Joanna Moncrieff cited in her editorial published here:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/3/193
the following paper:
The British Journal of Psychiatry 127: 599-603 (1975)
© 1975 The Royal College of PsychiatristsA statistical review of controlled trials of imipramine and placebo in the treatment of depressive illnesses
SC Rogers and PM Clay
A method of reviewing a series of clinical trials by extracting the basic data in the form of 2 x 2 tables and analysing these by Fisher's two-tailed Exact Test is described, and illustrated by published imipramine-placebo trials. The results suggest that the benefit of this drug in patients with endogenous depression who have not become institutionalized is indisputable, and that further drug-placebo trials in this condition are not justified. Two of the three trials of imipramine in neurotic depression gave results showing significant improvement. Possible explanations of the apparent failure of this drug in groups of patients with undifferentiated depression are discussed.
I really didn't understand why she included this as a reference. It appears to support the thesis that imipramine, a tricyclic antidepressant, is indisputably effective in endogenous depression, a true MDD variant, such that the ethics of further placebo controlled trials in this patient population are questioned. Perhaps I'm missing something.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:662854
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/669164.html