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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods: Fig 1
Jones, B., Jarvis, P., Lewis, J. A., & Ebbutt, A. F. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7048.36 · Cited by 1,032
Cited by
Synergy research: approaching a new generation of phytopharmaceuticals.
Wagner, H., & Ulrich-Merzenich, G. (2009) · Phytomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2008.12.018 · Cited by 1,296
Nuclear receptors CAR and PXR: Molecular, functional, and biomedical aspects
di Masi, A., Marinis, E. D., Ascenzi, P., & Marino, M. (2009) · Molecular Aspects of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.mam.2009.04.002 · Cited by 288
Herbal medicines in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: a systematic review
Sarris, J. (2007) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.2187 · Cited by 164
Oral Nonprescription Treatment for Insomnia: An Evaluation of Products With Limited Evidence
Meoli, A. L., Rosen, C., Kristo, D., Kohrman, M., Gooneratne, N., Aguillard, R. N., Fayle, R., Troell, R., Townsend, D., Claman, D., et al. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine · doi:10.5664/jcsm.26314 · Cited by 152
GREGORETTI, B. (2004) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2004.04.020 · Cited by 56
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.