Double-Blind Evaluation of Domperidone in Acute Vomiting and Dyspeptic Disorders

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Agorastos ◽  
N P Zissis ◽  
I Kaprinis ◽  
G Goulis
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Therapeutic Results ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Symptom Rating

The anti-emetic effects of domperidone were evaluated under double-blind conditions in twenty-four patients with acute vomiting randomly assigned to treatment either with 10 mg i.m. domperidone (six females, five males) or with placebo (seven females, six males). The therapeutic results were better with domperidone and the differences from placebo were statistically significant (p < 0.02). In a second randomized, crossover, double-blind trial, domperidone (10 mg t.i.d.) evaluated according to a nine-symptom rating scale, in eighteen dyspeptic patients, proved significantly more effective than placebo. The duration of treatment was 6 weeks and the drugs were crossed-over after 3 weeks. The difference between the two groups was most marked during the second phase of the trial. No side-effects were reported.

The Efficacy of Electroconvulsive Therapy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

1987 ◽  
Vol 151 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. R. Abraham ◽  
P. Kulhara
Keyword(s):  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Psychiatric Rating ◽  
Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
To Receive

The efficacy of ECT was investigated in a double-blind trial. Twenty-two patients with schizophrenia received trifluoperazine and were randomly allocated to receive eight real or eight simulated ECTs. In the first eight weeks, the group receiving real ECTs showed significantly more improvement as measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. However, the groups showed no significant differences from the twelfth week onwards. The superiority of real ECT was not confirmed at the end of six months.

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.

A Double-Blind Trial of Bradilan (Tetranicotinoylfructose) in Perniosis in General Practice

1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
F de S Donnan
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
The Difference

An initial double-blind cross-over study and a subsequent double-blind comparative study against placebo tablets has shown Bradilan (tetranicotinoylfructose) to be an effective treatment of chilblains. The difference between the active and placebo group was highly significant statistically with p < ·001

Amisulpride versus fluoxetine in dysthymia: preliminary results of a double-blind comparative study

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (S3) ◽  
pp. 141s-143s ◽  
Author(s):  
E Smeraldi ◽  
E Haefele ◽  
G Crespi ◽  
GL Casadei ◽  
F Biondi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Low Doses ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Main Criterion ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Significant Difference

SummaryThe efficacy and safety of low doses of amisulpride (50 mg/day) and of fluoxetine (20 mg/day) were compared respectively in 139 and 129 outpatients with dysthymia during three months in a multi-centre double-blind trial. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in the number of responders at study-end with the Montgomery and Asberg Depressive Rating Scale, which was the main criterion for efficacy. In addition, amisulpride was well tolerated. These preliminary results suggest that low doses of amisulpride may be effective in the treatment of dysthymic patients.

Aminophylline in Status Asthmaticus: Some Questions

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 631-632
Author(s):  
Kelsy J. Caplinger
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Status Asthmaticus ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Ventilatory Function ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Good Improvement

The report of a double blind trial of aminophylline in status asthmaticus by Pierson, et al. seems indeed to have shown that significant improvement in ventilatory function resulted without serious side effects. Aminophylline toxicity is a very real and potentially serious complication of the treatment of status asthmaticus. There is a wide variation in the recommended children's dose of aminophylline. Since this study showed apparent good improvement in ventilatory function (when used with other accepted medications in appropriate doses) and serious side effects were avoided, it would be of interest to know the dose of aminophylline required in these patients.

Clonazepam in Acute Mania: A Double Blind Trial

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rod Edwards ◽  
Una Stephenson ◽  
Tom Flewett
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Medication Side Effects ◽  
Sedative Effects ◽  
Medication Side ◽  
Manic Patients

In a double-blind trial involving acutely manic patients, clonazepam was compared to placebo, both groups receiving chlorpromazine as needed. The group receiving clonazepam showed significantly more improvement in their manic but not their psychotic symptoms compared to the placebo group. This effect was not primarily related to the sedative effects of clonazepam. Clonazepam tended to reduce the need for phenothiazine medication. Side effects related to sedation were more common to the clonazepam group. These findings are the first to indicate that clonazepam may have a specific antimanic effect over and above that of phenothiazines alone.

Pirenzepin in Gastric and Duodenal Ulcer: A Double-Blind Trial

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-151
Author(s):  
S Čerlek ◽  
B Papa ◽  
M Katičić ◽  
V Čolić-Cvrlje ◽  
H Mielenz
Keyword(s):  
Duodenal Ulcer ◽  
Marked Reduction ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Gastric Ulcers ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Mild Case ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Blurred Vision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial

In seventy-five out-patients with gastric and duodenal ulcer a comparative double-blind trial with pirenzepin against placebo was performed. The dose was 50 mg pirenzepin daily or placebo respectively, the duration of treatment being 4 weeks. The healing effect of pirenzepin in duodenal ulcer patients could be proven endoscopically and was statistically significant when compared with placebo (p ≤ 0.05). Strong evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of pirenzepin could be further demonstrated in both duodenal and gastric ulcer patients by measuring the marked reduction of ulcer size, even though statistical difference against placebo in gastric ulcers was not fully achieved. Pirenzepin was well tolerated by all patients, except for a mild case of diarrhoea which occurred in one patient. No patient complained of dryness of the mouth or of blurred vision.

scholarly journals Hypericum perforatum versus fluoxetine in the treatment of mild to moderate depression: a randomized double-blind trial in a Brazilian sample

2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Alberto Moreno ◽  
Chei Tung Teng ◽  
Karla Mathias de Almeida ◽  
Hildeberto Tavares Junior
Keyword(s):  
Hypericum Perforatum ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Brazilian Sample ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Moderate Depression ◽  
Antidepressant Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy Measures

OBJETIVE: Hypericum perforatum has demonstrated antidepressant efficacy when compared to placebo, but comparisons with other antidepressants remain controversial. We assessed the efficacy and safety of Hypericum perforatum in comparison with fluoxetine, in a 8-week double-blind trial in patients with mild to moderate depression. METHOD: Seventy-two outpatients were randomly assigned to receive Hypericum perforatum 900 mg/day, fluoxetine 20 mg/day or placebo. Efficacy measures included the HAM-D21 scale, the Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression. Safety was assessed with the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences between the mean scores of the three groups. In the analyses of observed cases, patients receiving Hypericum perforatum had the lowest remission rates (12%, p = 0.016) compared to fluoxetine (34.6%) and placebo (45%). CONCLUSIONS: Hypericum perforatum was less efficacious than both fluoxetine and placebo. Both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Larger trials are needed for definite conclusions.

A Comparative Double-Blind Trial of the New Antidepressant Caroxazone and Amitriptyline

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 388-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Cecchini ◽  
P Petri ◽  
R Ardito ◽  
S R Bareggi ◽  
A Torriti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pharmacological Properties ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
Hamilton Rating Scale

On the grounds of pharmacological properties and preliminary clinical trials the efficacy of the new antidepressant caroxazone was compared to amitriptyline in the management of depression. Forty patients mostly suffering from a neurotic or anxious-neurotic depression were admitted to a double-blind trial. All patients completed the study. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was used for the clinical assessment at the beginning, during and at the end of treatment. The trial lasted three weeks. A significant improvement was seen for both drugs after seven days on most symptom scores and on total symptom score. No significant differences were found either at seven days or at the end of treatment between the two drugs. There were no significant differences in the incidence and severity of side-effects. In conclusion, caroxazone appears as an effective and well tolerated drug in the treatment of depression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document