Treatment of Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia: Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Four Psychosocial Treatments Combined with Imipramine or Placebo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few randomized controlled trials have included panic disorder patients with moderate to severe agoraphobia. Therefore, this population was studied using pharmacotherapy as well as psychotherapy. At the time of the study, imipramine was widely used as a pharmacological treatment. Also, current practice guidelines for patients with panic disorder find selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants roughly comparable in terms of efficacy. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to compare four psychosocial treatments-cognitive and graded in vivo exposure treatments, graded in vivo exposure, cognitive treatment, and supportive therapy-to evaluate the benefits of combining cognitive therapy with exposure in vivo. These treatments were combined with imipramine or placebo for a total of eight experimental conditions. Participants presented moderate to severe agoraphobia. The method involved a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 137 participants who completed a 14-session protocol involving the treatments just mentioned. Measures were taken at baseline and posttreatment and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. All treatment conditions were statistically and clinically effective in reducing self-reported panic-agoraphobia symptoms over the 1-year follow-up. No statistical differences were observed between imipramine and placebo conditions. This study found that all treatment modalities helped reduce panic and agoraphobic symptomatology over a 1-year follow-up period. These surprising results support the need to document the relations among the various components of an intervention. This would make it possible to assess the relative efficacy of the treatment components rather than of the intervention as a whole.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it