Dosage of Haloperidol for Mania

1994 ◽  
Vol 165 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Rifkin ◽  
Seshagiri Doddi ◽  
Basawaraj Karajgi ◽  
Michael Borenstein ◽  
Ralph Munne
Keyword(s):  
Survival Analysis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Drop Outs ◽  
Different Doses

BackgroundWe compared three doses of a neuroleptic as a treatment for mania.MethodForty-seven newly admitted in-patients with mania were randomised to receive 10, 30, or 80 mg a day of oral haloperidol, under double-blind conditions for up to six weeks. All subjects received prophylactic benztropine.ResultsRepeated-measures analysis of variance and survival analysis showed no difference in outcome by the different doses. Excluding drop-outs (38%), most of whom left the study during the first two weeks, 72% of the subjects responded. Side-effects were minimal; there were no differences among the three doses. Non-responders received more adjunctive lorazepam than responders.ConclusionsThe limited data suggest that more than 10 mg a day of haloperidol offers no advantage in mania.

Effects of a Combination of Stances and Points of Aim on Putting Accuracy

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erich Gott ◽  
Carl Mc Gown
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Constant Error ◽  
Popular Opinion ◽  
Variable Error ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Better Than

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of two putting stances (conventional versus side-saddle) and two points of aim (ball versus hole) on putting accuracy. Subjects (12 men, 4 women) were taught to putt using four methods: (a) conventional stance, eyes on the ball; (b) conventional stance, eyes on the hole; (c) side-saddle stance, eyes on the ball; and (d) side-saddle stance, eyes on the hole. Each subject practiced each method for 2 wk., after which they were tested for purring accuracy by counting putts made, determining constant error, and by calculating variable error. Accuracy was assessed at 5 and 15 ft. A 2 by 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that there was no single combination of stance and point of aim that was significantly better than another at either distance. This suggests that, contrary to popular opinion, the traditional method of putting is not the best method for putting; other methods are equally as good and could be used if individually desired.

scholarly journals Estimating Bayes factors from minimal summary statistics in repeated measures analysis of variance designs

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Faulkenberry
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Complex Method ◽  
Summary Statistics ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis

In this paper, I develop a formula for estimating Bayes factors directly from minimal summary statistics produced in repeated measures analysis of variance designs. The formula, which requires knowing only the F-statistic, the number of subjects, and the number of repeated measurements per subject, is based on the BIC approximation of the Bayes factor, a common default method for Bayesian computation with linear models. In addition to providing computational examples, I report a simulation study in which I demonstrate that the formula compares favorably to a recently developed, more complex method that accounts for correlation between repeated measurements. The minimal BIC method provides a simple way for researchers to estimate Bayes factors from a minimal set of summary statistics, giving users a powerful index for estimating the evidential value of not only their own data, but also the data reported in published studies.

scholarly journals High-Dose Adrenaline in Adult In-Hospital Asystolic Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Double-Blind Randomised Trial

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Lipman ◽  
W. Wilson ◽  
S. Kobilski ◽  
J. Scribante ◽  
C. Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
To Receive

Forty intensive care unit patients requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation were randomised to receive either the standard dose of adrenaline (1 mg every five minutes) or high-dose adrenaline (10 mg every five minutes). In the majority of patients, overwhelming sepsis was the major contributing factor leading to cardiac arrest. In this group of patients no difference could be detected in response to high-dose adrenaline compared with the standard dose. Although no side-effects were noted with this high dose of adrenaline, more investigation is required prior to its routine use in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Roila ◽  
M Tonato ◽  
F Cognetti ◽  
E Cortesi ◽  
G Favalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Antiemetic Activity ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

Comparison of the efficacy of moclobemide and fluvoxamine in elderly patients with a severe depressive episode

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 319-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
JP Bocksberger ◽  
JP Gachoud ◽  
J Richard ◽  
Ρ Dick
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Psychomotor Retardation ◽  
Antidepressant Effect ◽  
Reversible Inhibitor ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
New Class ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
To Receive

SummaryIn a double-blind study carried out on elderly patients (older than 65 years) the efficacy and tolerability of the new antidepressant moclobemide was compared. Moclobemide belongs to a new class of substances called RIMA (Reversible inhibitor of the monoamine oxidase type A). Fluvoxamine, a selective reuptake-inhibitor of 5-HT, belongs to a class of antidepressants known for their better tolerability compared to tricyclic especially with elderly patients. Forty elderly patients (mean age 75 years) with major depression (according to DSM III) were randomized to receive either moclobemide (300 mg) or fluvoxamine (100 mg) twice daily. Dosages were increased when necessary on day 8, to a maximum of 450 mg moclobemide or 200 mg fluvoxamine and in most cases were maintained at these levels for the remainder of the study period (four weeks). Moclobemide was more effective than fluvoxamine showing a marked antidepressant effect and an earlier effect on psychomotor retardation. The two drugs were well tolerated showing a low incidence of side effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document