Cited by 37Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Anxious depression and early changes in the HAMD-17 anxiety-somatization factor items and antidepressant treatment outcome.

Open access
Farabaugh, Amy H., Bitran, Stella, Witte, Janet, Alpert, Jonathan, Chuzi, Sarah, Clain, Alisabet J., Baer, Lee, Fava, Maurizio +4 more·2010·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between early changes in anxiety/somatization symptoms and treatment outcome among major depressive disorder patients during a 12-week trial of fluoxetine. We also examined the relationship between anxious depression and treatment response. Five hundred and ten major depressive disorder patients received 12 weeks of fluoxetine with flexible dosing [target dosages: 10 mg/day (week 1), 20 mg/day (weeks 2-4), 40 mg/day (weeks 4-8), and 60 mg/day (weeks 5-12)]. We assessed the relationship between early changes in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17)-anxiety/somatization factor items and depressive remission, as well as whether anxious depression at baseline predicted remission at study endpoint. Baseline HAMD-17 scores were considered as covariates and the Bonferroni correction (P < or = 0.008) was used for multiple comparisons. Adjusting for baseline HAMD-17 scores, patients who experienced greater early improvement in somatic symptoms (gastrointestinal) were significantly more likely to attain remission (HAMD-17 <8) at endpoint than those without early improvement (P=0.006). Early changes in the remaining items did not predict remission, nor did anxious depression at baseline. In conclusion, among the anxiety/somatization factor items, only early changes in somatic symptoms (gastrointestinal) predicted remission. Future studies are warranted to further investigate this relationship as well as that between anxious depression and treatment outcome.

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 · 10.1097/yic.0b013e328339fbbd

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • GAD and conceptually related conditions lag behind in treatment efficacy compared to other anxiety and mood disorders, make otherwise efficacious interventions for MDD refractory, and are associated with difficulties maintaining durability of comorbid MDD gains over the long term.

    “GAD, and conceptually related conditions (e.g., MDD with anxious apprehensive features) lag behind in treatment efficacy compared to other anxiety and mood disorders6, makes otherwise efficacious interventions for MDD refractory7, and are associated with notable difficulties in maintaining durability of comorbid MDD gains over the long term8.”

    From AN OPEN TRIAL OF EMOTION REGULATION THERAPY FOR GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER AND COOCCURRING DEPRESSION. (2015) · cites this paper as [7]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When GAD and MDD co-occur, they are associated with increased public health burden and are more treatment refractory.

    “When they co-occur, GAD and MDD are associated with increased public health burden and are more treatment refractory (e.g., Whisman et al., 2000; Stein and Heimberg, 2004; Farabaugh et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2010; Tully et al., 2013).”

    From Distinct functional connectivities predict clinical response with emotion regulation therapy (2017) · cites this paper as Farabaugh et al., 2010

    The Methods and Results (pages unavailable) examine anxious symptoms in patients with MDD, not co-occurring GAD and MDD. The Results report that baseline anxious depression did not predict remission, but do not address treatment refractoriness or public-health burden in people with both diagnoses. Searches for GAD, comorbidity, treatment refractoriness, and public-health burden found no passage establishing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the STAR*D study, the subgroup with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder was most treatment refractory.

    “the subgroup of patients who evidenced the weakest treatment gains reflected a clinical presentation of mixed anxiety-depressive disorder (e.g., MDD + apprehensive anxious symptoms) was most treatment refractory (Farabaugh et al., 2010).”

    From Emotion Regulation Therapy: A Mechanism-Targeted Treatment for Disorders of Distress (2017) · cites this paper as Farabaugh et al., 2010

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1996 Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Patient Edition New York Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farabaugh, A. H., Bitran, S., Witte, J., Alpert, J., Chuzi, S., Clain, A. J., Baer, L., Fava, M., McGrath, P. J., Dording, C., Mischoulon, D., & Papakostas, G. I.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Farabaugh, Amy H.
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2010-07
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
214-217
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000461728
Cited by
37
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R10 MG56058)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R10MH056058, R10MH056057)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
anxious depression, somatization, anxiety symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, fluoxetine, antidepressant treatment outcome, early treatment response, major depressive disorder
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Fluoxetine, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Remission Induction, Treatment Outcome, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation

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