Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 480

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St John's Wort) in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group·2002·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used for the treatment of depression of varying severity. Their efficacy in major depressive disorder, however, has not been conclusively demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy and safety of a well-characterized H perforatum extract (LI-160) in major depressive disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 12 academic and community psychiatric research clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adult outpatients (n = 340) recruited between December 1998 and June 2000 with major depression and a baseline total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) of at least 20. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive H perforatum, placebo, or sertraline (as an active comparator) for 8 weeks. Based on clinical response, the daily dose of H perforatum could range from 900 to 1500 mg and that of sertraline from 50 to 100 mg. Responders at week 8 could continue blinded treatment for another 18 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the HAM-D total score from baseline to 8 weeks; rates of full response, determined by the HAM-D and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scores. RESULTS: On the 2 primary outcome measures, neither sertraline nor H perforatum was significantly different from placebo. The random regression parameter estimate for mean (SE) change in HAM-D total score from baseline to week 8 (with a greater decline indicating more improvement) was -9.20 (0.67) (95% confidence interval [CI], -10.51 to -7.89) for placebo vs -8.68 (0.68) (95% CI, -10.01 to -7.35) for H perforatum (P =.59) and -10.53 (0.72) (95% CI, -11.94 to -9.12) for sertraline (P =.18). Full response occurred in 31.9% of the placebo-treated patients vs 23.9% of the H perforatum-treated patients (P =.21) and 24.8% of sertraline-treated patients (P =.26). Sertraline was better than placebo on the CGI improvement scale (P =.02), which was a secondary measure in this study. Adverse-effect profiles for H perforatum and sertraline differed relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: This study fails to support the efficacy of H perforatum in moderately severe major depression. The result may be due to low assay sensitivity of the trial, but the complete absence of trends suggestive of efficacy for H perforatum is noteworthy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.287.14.1807

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-04-10
Volume
287
Issue
14
Pages
1807
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2605882613
Cited by
480
References
3
FWCI
70.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.