CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Treatment of Major DepressionSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Double-blind fluoxetine trial in comorbid MDD-CUD youth and young adults.

Open access
Cornelius, Jack R., Bukstein, Oscar G., Douaihy, Antoine B., Clark, Duncan B., Chung, Tammy A., Daley, Dennis C., Wood, D. Scott, Brown, Sandra J.·2010·Drug and Alcohol Dependence
DOI 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.05.010PMC PMC2946416
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective This study compared the acute phase (12-week) efficacy of fluoxetine versus placebo for the treatment of the depressive symptoms and the cannabis use of adolescents and young adults with comorbid major depression (MDD) and a cannabis use disorder (CUD) (cannabis dependence or cannabis abuse). We hypothesized that fluoxetine would demonstrate efficacy versus placebo for the treatment of the depressive symptoms and the cannabis use of adolescents and young adults with comorbid MDD/CUD.Methods We conducted the first double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in adolescents and young adults with comorbid MDD/CUD. All participants in both treatment groups also received manual-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivation enhancement therapy (MET) during the 12-week course of the study.Results Fluoxetine was well tolerated in this treatment population. No significant group-by-time interactions were noted for any depression-related or cannabis-use related outcome variable over the 12-week study. Subjects in both the fluoxetine group and the placebo group showed significant within-group improvement in depressive symptoms and in number of DSM diagnostic criteria for a CUD. Large magnitude decreases in depressive symptoms were noted in both treatment groups, and end-of-study levels of depressive symptoms were low in both treatment groups.Conclusions Fluoxetine did not demonstrate greater efficacy than placebo for treating either the depressive symptoms or the cannabis-related symptoms of our study sample of comorbid adolescents and young adults. The lack of a significant between-group difference in these symptoms may reflect limited medication efficacy, or may result from efficacy of the CBT/MET psychotherapy or from limited sample size.

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 · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.05.010

Cites

57 of 57 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 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kadden, 1994, vol. 5
  2. Miller, W.R., Zweben, A., DiClemente, C.C., Rychtarik, R.G. (1992). Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual. Project MATCH Monograph Series, vol. 2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Washington, DC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cornelius, J. R., Bukstein, O. G., Douaihy, A. B., Clark, D. B., Chung, T. A., Daley, D. C., Wood, D. S., & Brown, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Cornelius, Jack R.
ORCID
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
112
Issue
1-2
Pages
39-45
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.05.010
PMC
PMC2946416
OpenAlex
W2046264373
Cited by
105
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50 DA05605, R01 DA019142, R01 DA14635, K02 DA017822)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA013370, R01 AA13397, R01 AA14357, R21 AA016272, R01 AA015173, K24 AA15320, U01 AA016482, K02 AA000291)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Keywords
fluoxetine, major depressive disorder, cannabis use disorder, comorbidities, adolescents, young adults, depressive symptoms, cognitive behavioral therapy, antidepressant efficacy, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Marijuana Abuse, Combined Modality Therapy, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fluoxetine, Humans, Male, Placebos, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation, Young Adult

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