Advertisement

A Double Blind Out Patient Comparative Trial of Indalpine Versus Mianserin

  • B. Martin
  • G. J. Naylor

Abstract

Indalpine, inhibits the re-uptake of 5HT but it is obvious that there is no single agreed hypothesis to explain depression. Whatever the proposed mechanism of action of an antidepressant, the main question for the clinician is “is the drug an effective and safe antidepressant in clinical practice,” and the following trial was carried out to determine Indalpine’s efficacy by comparing it to an established antidepressant. This design was chosen because of the ethical difficulties of placebo controlled out-patient trials but it is scientifically the weaker design because the null hypothesis is then that the two drugs are equally effective and failure to reject this hypothesis may be the result of a poorly designed trial, too small numbers, etc. Thus one does not prove the two drugs to be similar, one simply fails to prove that they differ. Despite such difficulties, however, double blind control trials are essential tools for the assessment of a new antidepressant and many such trials are necessary before the effectiveness of a drug can be said to be established. With placebo effect and observer bias, open trials are unsuitable for assessing such drugs.

Keywords

White Cell Count Global Rating Scale Double Blind Control Trial Abnormal Liver Enzyme Weak Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Hamilton, A rating scale for depression. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 23, 56–65 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. T. Beck, Archives of Gen. Psychiatry, 4, 561–571 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. W. P. Carney, M. Roth, and R. F. Garside, The diagnosis of depressive syndromes and the prediction of ECT response. Br. J. Psychiat., 111, 659–674 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Martin
    • 1
  • G. J. Naylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of DundeeDundeeScotland

Personalised recommendations