Cited by 32Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Nefazodone in the Treatment of Patients Hospitalized for Major Depression

Feighner, John, Targum, Steven D., Bennett, Mary Ellen, Roberts, Douglas L., Kensler, Terry T., D'Amico, M. Frances, Hardy, Sterling A.·1998·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

Background There are few published placebo-controlled clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of the newer antidepressants in markedly or severely depressed hospitalized patients. This study demonstrates the efficacy of nefazodone compared with placebo in the treatment of patients hospitalized for major depression. Method Nefazodone and placebo treatment were compared in a 6-week trial of 120 patients hospitalized for DSM-III-R diagnosed major depression (without psychosis) at 2 study centers. Efficacy was evaluated using standard psychiatric rating scales, and patients were monitored for safety. Results Nefazodone treatment resulted in a significant reduction (p or = 50% reduction in their HAM-D-17 scores (p = .017). Significantly more patients treated with nefazodone (36%) than placebo-treated patients (14%) had a HAM-D-17 score Conclusion Nefazodone was superior to placebo in the treatment of marked to severe major depression in patients requiring hospitalization. The clinical benefit of nefazodone was evident as early as the first week of treatment as judged by several measures of efficacy, with significant differences from placebo sustained throughout the trial.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.v59n0508

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Nefazodone (100-600mg) was associated with significantly better improvements in HAMD sleep scores than placebo.

    “(Feighner et al., 1998) found that nefazodone (100-600mg) was associated with significantly better improvements in HAMD sleep scores than placebo.”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Feighner et al., 1998

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Feighner, J., Targum, S. D., Bennett, M. E., Roberts, D. L., Kensler, T. T., D'Amico, M. F., & Hardy, S. A.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
1998-05-15
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
246-253
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968014398
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Disorders
Keywords
nefazodone, major depressive disorder, hospitalized patients, antidepressant efficacy, placebo comparison, dysthymia, treatment response, adverse events, drug safety, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, sleep disorders, anxiety, anergia, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Headache, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Nausea, Piperazines, Placebos, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Severity of Illness Index, Triazoles, Linear Models, Treatment Outcome, Age of Onset, 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