A randomized trial of sertraline, self-administered cognitive behavior therapy, and their combination for panic disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-administered cognitive behavior therapy (SCBT) has been shown to be an effective alternative to therapist-delivered treatment for panic disorder (PD). However, it is unknown whether combining SCBT and antidepressants can improve treatment. This trial evaluated the efficacy of SCBT and sertraline, alone or in combination, in PD. METHOD: Patients (n=251) were randomized to 12 weeks of either placebo drug, placebo drug plus SCBT, sertraline, or sertraline plus SCBT. Those who improved after 12 weeks of acute treatment received treatment for an additional 12 weeks. Outcome measures included core PD symptoms (panic attacks, anticipatory anxiety, agoraphobic avoidance), dysfunctional cognitions (fear of bodily sensations, agoraphobic cognitions), disability, and clinical global impression of severity and improvement. Efficacy data were analyzed using general and generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Primary analyses of trends over time revealed that sertraline/SCBT produced a significantly greater rate of decline in fear of bodily sensations compared to sertraline, placebo/SCBT and placebo. Trends in other outcomes were not significantly different over time. Secondary analyses of mean scores at week 12 revealed that sertraline/SCBT fared better on several outcomes than placebo, with improvement being maintained at the end of continuation treatment. Outcome did not differ between placebo and either sertraline monotherapy or placebo/SCBT. Moreover, few differences emerged between the active interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This trial suggests that sertraline combined with SCBT may be an effective treatment for PD. The study could not confirm the efficacy of sertraline monotherapy or SCBT without concomitant medication or therapist assistance in the treatment of PD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".