Cited by 35Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCardiac Health and Mental Health

Assessing the efficacy of treatments for panic disorder and agoraphobia. I. Methodological problems

Bandelow, B., Hajak, G., Holzrichter, S., Kunert, H. J., Rüther, E.·1995·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

An assessment of the efficacy of treatments in panic disorder and agoraphobia (PDA) is complicated by methodological problems resulting from the complexity of these disorders. In this paper, commonly used anxiety scales are discussed with regard to their relevance in the assessment of PDA. Although there are already many scales for assessing anxiety and agoraphobia, a qualified instrument for measuring the severity of PDA is still lacking. A survey of the instruments used in recent treatment studies of PDA shows that rather inhomogeneous efficacy criteria were applied. Most often, panic attack frequency was taken as a severity criterion, although this measure showed little power to differentiate between treatments. To deal with the special features of PDA, a battery of different scales was usually employed and non-standardized scales were sometimes used additionally. A new rating scale designed to overcome the methodological problems associated with the assessment of severity in PDA was introduced. The use of the psychiatrist-rated Panic and Agoraphobia (P&A) scale in patients with DSM-III-R panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (n = 235) shows that this scale has the highest correlation with the psychiatrists' clinical global impression of PDA patients (r = 0.79, p < 0.0001), compared with other commonly used observer-rated anxiety scales. The self-rating version of the P&A again had the highest correlation with a patient-rated clinical global impression (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001), whereas the other patient-rated anxiety questionnaires correlated only moderately or poorly. By means of logistic regression, it was shown that the five subscores of the scale contribute independently and almost equally to the prediction of PDA severity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004850-199506000-00004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bandelow, B., Hajak, G., Holzrichter, S., Kunert, H. J., & Rüther, E.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
1995-06
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
83-94
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072302115
Cited by
35
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
panic disorder, agoraphobia, treatment efficacy assessment, severity measurement, anxiety rating scales, clinical global impression, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Agoraphobia, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Probability, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Panic Disorder

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