Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Placebo-controlled comparison of prazosin and cognitive-behavioral treatments for sleep disturbances in US Military Veterans

Open access
Germain, Anne, Richardson, Robin, Moul, Douglas E., Mammen, Oommen, Haas, Gretchen, Forman, Steven D., Rode, Noelle, Begley, Amy, Nofzinger, Eric A.·2012·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective Pharmacological and cognitive-behavioral treatments targeting insomnia and nightmares have been shown to be effective in the treatment of military veterans with sleep complaints comorbid with symptoms of stress-related disorders, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), but the two approaches have not been directly compared. This randomized controlled trial compared the effects of prazosin vs. a behavioral sleep intervention (BSI), targeting nightmares and insomnia against a placebo pill control condition on sleep and daytime symptoms. Methods Fifty United States military veterans (mean age 40.9 years, SD = 13.2 years) with chronic sleep disturbances were randomized to prazosin (n = 18), BSI (n = 17), or placebo (n = 15). Each intervention lasted eight weeks. Participants completed self-report measures of insomnia severity, sleep quality, and sleep disturbances. All kept a sleep diary throughout the intervention period. Polysomnographic studies were conducted pre- and post-intervention. Results Both active treatment groups showed greater reductions in insomnia severity and daytime PTSD symptom severity. Sleep improvements were found in 61.9% of those who completed the active treatments and 25% of those randomized to placebo. Conclusion BSI and prazosin were both associated with significant sleep improvements and reductions in daytime PTSD symptoms in this sample of military veterans. Sleep-focused treatments may enhance the benefits of first-line PTSD treatments.

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.jpsychores.2011.11.010

Cites

13 of 13 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 13 references

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Germain, A., Richardson, R., Moul, D. E., Mammen, O., Haas, G., Forman, S. D., Rode, N., Begley, A., & Nofzinger, E. A.
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
89-96
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060373473
Cited by
229
References
13
FWCI
21.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Placebo-controlled comparison of prazosin and cognitive-behavioral treatments for sleep disturbances in US Military Veterans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.11.010
The paper
Germain, A., Richardson, R., Moul, D. E., Mammen, O., Haas, G., Forman, S. D., Rode, N., Begley, A., & Nofzinger, E. A. (2012). Placebo-controlled comparison of prazosin and cognitive-behavioral treatments for sleep disturbances in US Military Veterans. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.11.010

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.