MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hydroxyzine for generalised anxiety disorder

2010· review· en· W1746481573 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Guaiana, Corrado Barbui, Andrea Cipriani

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroxyzineAnxietyTolerabilityGeneralized anxiety disorderPlaceboMedicineAdverse effectBuspironePsychiatryRandomized controlled trialPsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a common chronic long-term psychiatric disorder, particularly frequent in primary care. There are several treatment options available, both non-pharmacological (i.e. cognitive behavioral therapy) and pharmacological. Among the pharmacological interventions, antidepressants, buspirone and benzodiazepines (BDZs) have been studied in GAD. Hydroxyzine is an anti-histamine medication which has been used in the treatment of anxiety. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the efficacy of hydroxyzine in comparison with placebo or any other active agent in alleviating the acute symptoms of GAD. 2. To review acceptability of treatment with hydroxyzine in comparison with placebo or any other active agent. 3. To investigate the adverse effects of hydroxyzine in comparison with other active agents. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's controlled trial registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched on 1 March 2010. The author team ran complementary searches on MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and checked reference lists of included studies, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of anxiety disorders. Personal communication with pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field was also undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with GAD to hydroxyzine versus placebo and/or any other anxiolytic agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (such as the number of patients who responded to treatment or remitted), acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side effect profile). MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded 39 studies. We included five studies in the review with a total of 884 participants. We excluded 31 studies and designated three as awaiting assessment. The data from the included studies provide some evidence that hydroxyzine is more effective than placebo for GAD (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58) and that it is also acceptable/tolerable (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.58) (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.40). Compared to other anxiolytic agents (benzodiazepines and buspirone), hydroxyzine was equivalent in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability (hydroxyzine vs chloridiazepoxide: OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.62; hydroxyzine vs buspirone efficacy OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.42). In terms of side effects, hydroxyzine was associated with a higher rate of sleepiness/drowsiness than the active comparators (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.53). There was, however, a high risk of bias in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol for this review. Even though more effective than placebo, due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, the small number of studies and the overall small sample size, it is not possible to recommend hydroxyzine as a reliable first-line treatment in GAD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations273
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207