scholarly journals Agonist-Like or Antagonist-Like Treatment for Cocaine Dependence with Methadone for Heroin Dependence: Two Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trials

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 969-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Grabowski ◽  
Howard Rhoades ◽  
Angela Stotts ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Charles Kopecky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cocaine Dependence ◽  
Heroin Dependence ◽  
Double Blind

What are the reciprocal influences of randomized clinical trials and the patient–psychiatrist relationship?

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
J. Catteau ◽  
C. Cyran ◽  
R. Bordet ◽  
C.E. Thomas ◽  
B.A. Dupuis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Antidepressant Drugs ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Reciprocal Influences

SummaryThe goal of this prospective investigation was to study the course and the quality of patient-psychiatrist relationships during phase II / phase III clinical trials of antidepressant medication prescribed for depressive disorders. All patients who participated in the clinical trials (and subsequently in this survey) signed written informed consent statements and were subject to random double blind treatment assignment. Retrospective analysis of 118 investigations was carried out, and the patients involved were questioned concerning their experiences and impressions during and after the study. Data show that the outcome of clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are not a function of pre-existing good patient-psychiatrist relationships. On the other hand, no effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship were found as a result of the experimental procedure, and it can be concluded that no detrimental effects on future patient-psychiatrist relationships were incurred.

scholarly journals Prednisolone adverse events in the treatment and prevention of leprosy neuropathy in two large double blind randomized clinical trials 

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-246
Author(s):  
Erik Post ◽  
Inge Wagenaar ◽  
Wim Brandsma ◽  
Bob Bowers ◽  
Khorshed Alam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Leprosy Neuropathy

scholarly journals Topical Corticosteroids a Viable Solution for Oral Graft versus Host Disease? A Systematic Insight on Randomized Clinical Trials

Medicina ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 349
Author(s):  
Arin Sava ◽  
Andra Piciu ◽  
Sergiu Pasca ◽  
Alexandru Mester ◽  
Ciprian Tomuleasa
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Graft Versus Host Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Host Disease ◽  
Graft Versus Host ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Topical Corticosteroids ◽  
Oral Gvhd

Background and Objectives: This research attempts to provide a clear view of the literature on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy of topical dexamethasone, clobetasol and budesonide in oral graft versus host disease (GVHD). Materials and Methods: An electronic search of the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases was carried out for eligible RCTs. Studies were included if they had adult patients with oral GVHD treatment with topical corticosteroids, and if the RCT study was published in English. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of these studies. Overall, three RCTs were included (an Open, Randomized, Multicenter Trial; a Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial; and an Open-Label Phase II Randomized Trial). Results: The trials involved 76 patients, of which 44 patients received topical dexamethasone, 14 patients received topical clobetasol and 18 patients received topical budesonide. Topical agents were most frequently used when oral tissues were the sole site of involvement. It appears that the best overall response is present for budesonide with no difference between the four arms, followed by clobetasol, and then by dexamethasone. The limitation of the current study is mainly represented by the fact that overall response was derived in two of the studies from other parameters. Moreover, both budesonide and clobetasol were used in only one study each, while two assessed dexamethasone. Conclusions: Based on the clinical trials, all three agents seem to be effective in treating oral GVHD and had a satisfactory safety profile. There is still a need for assessing high quality RCTs to assess the efficacy of these therapies on a larger cohort.

scholarly journals Gender differences in clinical outcomes for cocaine dependence: Randomized clinical trials of behavioral therapy and disulfiram

2014 ◽  
Vol 145 ◽  
pp. 156-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise E. DeVito ◽  
Theresa A. Babuscio ◽  
Charla Nich ◽  
Samuel A. Ball ◽  
Kathleen M. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Cocaine Dependence

scholarly journals Existing and Emerging Approaches to Treating Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

US Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Brannagan III Thomas H ◽  
Khosro Farhad ◽  
Inna Kleyman ◽  
Megan Leitch ◽  
Rebecca Traub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy ◽  
Neurological Diseases ◽  
Demyelinating Polyneuropathy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare disabling disease with an incompletely understood autoimmune etiology. Differentiating the condition from other neurological diseases can be challenging and appropriate treatment is often delayed. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), plasmapheresis, corticosteroids and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) have all been demonstrated to be beneficial in placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. Corticosteroids, including methylprednisolone and dexamethasone are effective and frequently used in CIDP but their long-term use is limited by side effects. One of the most commonly prescribed treatments for CIDP is IVIg which diminishes inflammatory processes and prevents disease progression. Treatment with IVIg has proven effective in randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trials and the results support its use in CIDP. For some patients, the benefit of IVIg, is limited by the frequency of infusions and systemic side effects such as flu-like symptoms, headache, and nausea. Other effective treatments for CIDP include corticosteroids that are associated with serious side effects in long-term use and plasmapheresis which requires specialized facilities. More recently, SCIg has been demonstrated in double blind, placebo-controlled studies to be effective for maintenance use in CIDP in patients whose disease has been controlled by IVIg. In a large clinical trial, 0.2 g/kg and 0.4 g/kg body weight doses of 20% SCIg equivalent to 1 mL/kg or 2 mL/kg, respectively, administered weekly, demonstrated efficacy in CIDP and were well tolerated. Immunomodulating treatments such as cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil and rituximab have also shown efficacy in select populations with CIDP.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of studies included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi ◽  
Pouria Iranparvar ◽  
Maryam Shakiba ◽  
Erfan Shamsoddin ◽  
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Performance Bias

AbstractObjectivesThe Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of randomized clinical trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were assessed.Study Design and SettingsAll the trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were examined. The RoB was evaluated for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study based on the criteria for determining the overall bias in Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each intended variable.ResultsA total of 2565 studies were included in our analysis. The majority of the studies (n=1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. As for blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB compared to 11.1% with low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had higher low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). The double-blind studies had the highest low ORoB (23.6%). The studies with a cross-over design had the highest low ORoB (28.8%).ConclusionOverall, the RoB for the studies on dentistry and oral health in Cochrane reviews was deemed high.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document