Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of St John's wort and imipramine for treating depression: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Woelk, H.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort extract) with imipramine in patients with mild to moderate depression. DESIGN: Randomised, multicentre, double blind, parallel group trial. SETTING: 40 outpatient clinics in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 324 outpatients with mild to moderate depression. INTERVENTION: 75 mg imipramine twice daily or 250 mg hypericum extract ZE 117 twice daily for 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hamilton depression rating scale, clinical global impression scale, and patient's global impression scale. RESULTS: Among the 157 participants taking hypericum mean scores on the Hamilton depression scale decreased from 22.4 at baseline to 12.00 at end point; among the 167 participants taking imipramine they fell from 22.1 to 12.75. Mean clinical global impression scores at end point were 2.22 out of 7 for the hypericum group and 2.42 for the imipramine group. On the 7 point self assessments of global improvement completed by participants (score of 1 indicating "very much improved" and 7 indicating "very much deteriorated") mean scores were 2.44 in the hypericum group and 2.60 in the imipramine group. None of the differences between treatment groups were significant. However, the mean score on the anxiety-somatisation subscale of the Hamilton scale (3.79 in the hypericum group and 4.26 in the imipramine group) indicated a significant advantage for hypericum relative to imipramine. Mean scores on the 5 point scale used by participants to assess tolerability (score of 1 indicating excellent tolerability and 5 indicating very poor tolerability) were better for hypericum (1.67) than imipramine (2.35). Adverse events occurred in 62/157 (39%) participants taking hypericum and in 105/167 (63%) taking imipramine. 4 (3%) participants taking hypericum withdrew because of adverse events compared with 26 (16%) taking imipramine. CONCLUSIONS: This Hypericum perforatum extract is therapeutically equivalent to imipramine in treating mild to moderate depression, but patients tolerate hypericum better.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.321.7260.536

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Woelk, H.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-09-02
Volume
321
Issue
7260
Pages
536-539
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2087776953
Cited by
264
References
1
FWCI
48.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.