A Multicentric Clinical Trial Comparing Otocerol® with Cerumol® as Cerumenolytics

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Jaffé ◽  
Jack Grimshaw
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Better Than

Fifteen general practitioners conducted a randomized, double-blind comparative trial of two cerumenolytics, namely, Otocerol® and Cerumol®. A total of 106 patients were entered into the study (fifty-three in each group). Otocerol was shown to be marginally better than Cerumol in all parameters evaluated.

A Comparative Trial of Opipramol and Chlordiazepoxide in the Treatment of Anxiety

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Jepson ◽  
G Beaumont
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Anxiety Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Somatic Anxiety ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
The Difference

A daily dose of 200 mg of opipramol (Insidon, Geigy) and 30 mg of chlordiazepoxide (Librium, Roche) were compared in a clinical trial in general practice. The trial was double blind and a stratified randomisation technique was employed. Twenty four patients received opipramol and twenty six chlordiazepoxide for four weeks. A total anxiety score and separate ‘psychic’ anxiety and ‘somatic’ anxiety scores were recorded, using a rating scale initially and after two and four weeks treatment. No overall difference in efficacy was found between the two drugs—opipramol producing a 76% improvement and chlordiazepoxide 64% by the end of the study. There was no difference in the relief of psychic anxiety. Although opipramol appeared to give more relief of somatic anxiety, the difference was not statistically significant. Again although opipramol relieved more individual symptoms than chlordiazepoxide, none of the differences were significant. 70% of patients on opipramol and 74% of those on chlordiazepoxide were classified ‘better’ globally by both doctor and patient by the end of the trial. The total number of side effects recorded was similar on both drugs although drowsiness occurred twice as frequently on chlordiazepoxide as it did on opipramol.

Diclofenac-K (50 and 100 mg) and Placebo in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Cephalalgia ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Dahlöf ◽  
R Björkman
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Study Medication ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Working Ability ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Associated Symptoms ◽  
Oral Doses ◽  
Better Than

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of single oral doses of 50 mg and 100 mg of diclofenac-K compared to placebo in migraine sufferers during three attacks. The study was conducted in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, three-period, within-patient comparative trial; 72 migraine patients were treated with diclofenac-K (50 mg or 100 mg) or placebo at six centres (1 in Sweden and 5 in Finland). The primary efficacy end-point was the change in pain intensity assessed on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 120 min after taking the study medication. We found that 50 mg and 100 mg of diclofenac-K reduced the pain intensity significantly better than placebo ( p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively), without difference between the doses; 100 mg diclofenac-K was significantly better than placebo in improving phonophobia, photophobia, working ability and need for rescue medication. Diclofenac-K 50 mg or 100 mg is an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine headache and its associated symptoms. The higher dose of diclofenac-K was only marginally more effective than the lower dose.

A Comparative Trial of Minocin (Minocycline Hydrochloride) and Ampicillin in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 304-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
G R F Burrow ◽  
A S Fox ◽  
R J E Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Chronic Bronchitis ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acute Exacerbations ◽  
Minocycline Hydrochloride ◽  
Long Acting

One hundred and fifteen patients suffering from acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis took part in a double-blind, multicentre, clinical trial designed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of ampicillin and minocycline hydrochloride, a new, long-acting, semi-synthetic tetracycline. Both antibiotics were equally successful in treatment, there being no statistically significant difference between the two in any of the parameters studied. Side-effects were few and far between. Only one patient out of the 57 who took minocycline, complained of dizziness.

Does photobiomodulation therapy is better than cryotherapy in muscle recovery after a high-intensity exercise? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 429-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thiago De Marchi ◽  
Vinicius Mazzochi Schmitt ◽  
Guilherme Pinheiro Machado ◽  
Juliane Souza de Sene ◽  
Camila Dallavechia de Col ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Photobiomodulation Therapy ◽  
High Intensity Exercise ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Muscle Recovery ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Better Than

A Clinical Trial of Electrosleep Therapy with a Psychiatric Inpatient Sample

1975 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene A. Levitt ◽  
Norman McI. James ◽  
Philippa Flavell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Psychiatric Inpatient ◽  
The Other ◽  
Quality Of Sleep ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Symptoms Of Depression ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Sleep Difficulties ◽  
Better Than

The study assessed the effectiveness of electrosleep therapy in the treatment of depression, anxiety, and sleep difficulties in a small, heterogeneous sample of psychiatric inpatients. A double-blind format was employed, one group receiving active treatment while the other received simulated treatment. The results showed active electrosleep to be no better than placebo in bettering quality of sleep or in lessening symptoms of depression or anxiety.

A Comparative Clinical Trial of Mianserin (Norval®) and Amitriptyline in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Eric Murphy ◽  
K M Bridgman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

A double-blind controlled comparative trial of mianserin (Norval®) and amitriptyline was conducted in general practice. Fifty-one patients were treated with amitriptyline and fifty-five with mianserin. The dosage for the first week was 25 mg t.d.s. for amitriptyline and 10 mg t.d.s. for mianserin, increasing to 50 mg t.d.s. and 20 mg t.d.s. respectively for the subsequent three weeks. Both drugs proved equally effective in relieving the symptoms of primary depression but mianserin showed a reduced incidence of side-effects which was statistically significant.

A Non-Amphetamine Anorectic Agent: Preclinical Background and a Double-Blind Clinical Trial

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 328-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis N Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Anorectic Agent

Preclinical data suggesting potential advantages for mazindol prompted the design of a double-blind comparative trial with 60 obese patients. In it, mazindol, 2 mg once a day, was compared for 12 weeks to placebo. Weight loss was significantly greater with mazindol than placebo throughout the trial. After the 12 weeks, the mazindol patients had lost an average of 18.5 lbs compared to 2.4 lbs with placebo. Constant efficacy at the fixed once-daily dosage was obtained with no signs of tolerance. No significant adverse effects or other signs of toxicity to mazindol were encountered. Extensive clinical evaluation of this drug in relation to the established anorectics is strongly recommended.

A Comparative Trial of Two Formulations of Clomipramine

1972 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Beaumont ◽  
J Seldrup
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Drug Effects ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Good Clinical Response ◽  
Clinical Rating Scale

In a multi-centre clinical trial comparing two formulations of Clomipramine (Anafranil® Geigy) thirty General Practitioners provided two hundred and seven patients. One hundred and forty nine patients completed the study. No difference was found between a capsule and a tablet formulation in terms of tolerance and efficacy. Using a clinical rating scale the total score for twelve symptoms fell from a mean of 18 .2 to 5.5 and 6.0 in the capsule and tablet groups respectively. By recording the presence of symptoms subsequently to be regarded as side effects before admission to the trial many so called drug effects were found to be present before commencing treatment. The forty patients who dropped out of the trial because of intolerable side effects also failed to show any clinical improvement and appeared to constitute a separate group from those who completed the trial and who showed good clinical response in association with a diminishing number of side effects.

A Double-Blind Comparison of Ibuprofen, ASA-Codeine-Caffeine Compound and Placebo in the Treatment of Dental Surgery Pain

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J P Squires ◽  
E L Masson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Oral Dose ◽  
Codeine Phosphate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Dental Surgery ◽  
Caffeine Citrate ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Better Than

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in eighty-seven patients with mild, moderate or severe dental surgery pain to evaluate the analgesic activity of a single oral dose of the following compounds: (i) ibuprofen 400 mg, (ii) ACC-30 (a compound containing ASA 375 mg; codeine phosphate 30 mg; caffeine citrate 30 mg), (iii) placebo. Ibuprofen was significantly better than ACC-30 and placebo on almost all pain intensity, degree of relief and duration of analgesia parameters. ACC-30 was not significantly different from placebo on any analgesic measurement. No serious side-effects were reported with any of the study medications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document