The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program: General Effectiveness of Treatments
Abstract
We investigated the effectiveness of two brief psychotherapies, interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavior therapy, for the treatment of outpatients with major depression disorder diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria. Two hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to one of four 16-week treatment conditions: interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behavior therapy, imipramine hydrochloride plus clinical management (as a standard reference treatment), and placebo plus clinical management. Patients in all treatments showed significant reduction in depressive symptoms and improvement in functioning over the course of treatment. There was a consistent ordering of treatments at termination, with imipramine plus clinical management generally doing best, placebo plus clinical management worst, and the two psychotherapies in between but generally closer to imipramine plus clinical management. In analyses carried out on the total samples without regard to initial severity of illness (the primary analyses), there was no evidence of greater effectiveness of one of the psychotherapies as compared with the other and no evidence that either of the psychotherapies was significantly less effective than the standard reference treatment, imipramine plus clinical management. Comparing each of the psychotherapies with the placebo plus clinical management condition, there was limited evidence of the specific effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy and none for cognitive behavior therapy. Superior recovery rates were found for both interpersonal psychotherapy and imipramine plus clinical management, as compared with placebo plus clinical management. On mean scores, however, there were few significant differences in effectiveness among the four treatments in the primary analyses. Secondary analyses, in which patients were dichotomized on initial level of severity of depressive symptoms and impairment of functioning, helped to explain the relative lack of significant findings in the primary analyses. Significant differences among treatments were present only for the subgroup of patients who were more severely depressed and functionally impaired; here, there was some evidence of the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy with these patients and strong evidence of the effectiveness of imipramine plus clinical management. In contrast, there were no significant differences among treatments, including placebo plus clinical management, for the less severely depressed and functionally impaired patients.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“although CBT did not fare as well as IPT or antidepressant medication among the more severely depressed patients in this study.”
From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Elkin et al., 1989
In the citing paper
“Outcomes for CBT and interpersonal therapy were generally equivalent (Elkin et al., 1989)”
From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Elkin et al., 1989
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
Cognitive Therapy for Depression
(2012) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e675542012-001 · Cited by 9,678
Development of a Rating Scale for Primary Depressive Illness
Hamilton, M. (1967) · British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1967.tb00530.x · Cited by 8,410
Spitzer, R. L. (1978) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770300115013 · Cited by 6,946
Endicott, J. (1978) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770310043002 · Cited by 5,686
Simultaneous Statistical Inference
Miller, R. G. (1981) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8122-8 · Cited by 5,608
The Global Assessment Scale: A Procedure for Measuring Overall Severity of Psychiatric Disturbance
Endicott, J. (1976) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1976.01770060086012 · Cited by 4,982
SCL-90: an outpatient psychiatric rating scale--preliminary report.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973) · PubMed · Cited by 3,800
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Depression and Pain Comorbidity: A Literature Review
Bair, M. J., Robinson, R. L., Katon, W., & Kroenke, K. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.20.2433 · Cited by 3,463
The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., & Beck, A. T. (2006) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003 · Cited by 3,215
Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685 · Cited by 2,097
Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-analysis
Fournier, J. C., DeRubeis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Dimidjian, S., Amsterdam, J. D., Shelton, R. C., & Fawcett, J. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1943 · Cited by 2,009
Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E., Gallop, R., McGlinchey, J. B., Markley, D. K., Gollan, J. K., et al. (2006) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.4.658 · Cited by 1,607
Metadata
- Authors
- Elkin, I.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Elkin, Irene
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1989-11-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 971
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169217816
- Cited by
- 2,300
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 80
- FWCI
- 71.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH 33762, MH-33760, MH33753)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, imipramine, antidepressant treatment, brief psychotherapy, outpatients, treatment effectiveness, depression severity, functional disability, placebo response, subgroup analysis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Ambulatory Care, Combined Modality Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Imipramine, Male, National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.), Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Placebos, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, United States, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review