MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacotherapy for trichotillomania

2013· review· en· W2085240634 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Rothbart, Taryn Amos, Nandi Siegfried, Jonathan Ipser, Naomi Fineberg, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Dan J. Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicinePsycINFOCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisMEDLINERandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalAnxietyClinical trialPsychiatryRelative riskDepression (economics)Physical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Trichotillomania (TTM) (hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. The effect of medication on trichotillomania has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania in adults compared with placebo or other active agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (to 31 July 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years); EMBASE (1974 to date); MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Two review authors identified relevant trials by assessing the abstracts of all possible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a medication versus placebo or active agent for TTM in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments, and disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third review author. Primary outcomes included the mean difference (MD) in reduction of trichotillomania symptoms on a continuous measure of trichotillomania symptom severity, and the risk ratio (RR) of the clinical response based on a dichotomous measure, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies with a total of 204 participants and a mean sample size of 25. All trials were single-centre trials, and participants seen on an outpatient basis. Seven studies compared medication and placebo (n = 184); one study compared medication and another active agent (n = 13). Duration of the studies was six to twelve weeks. Meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the methodological heterogeneity of the trials. The studies did not employ intention-to-treat analyses and were at a high risk of attrition bias. Adverse events were not well-documented in the studies.None of the three studies of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated strong evidence of a treatment effect on any of the outcomes of interest. The unpublished naltrexone study did not provide strong evidence of a treatment effect. Two studies, an olanzapine study and a N-acetylcysteine (NAC) study, reported statistically significant treatment effects. One study of clomipramine demonstrated a treatment effect on two out of three measures of response to treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No particular medication class definitively demonstrates efficacy in the treatment of trichotillomania. Preliminary evidence suggests treatment effects of clomipramine, NAC and olanzapine based on three individual trials, albeit with very small sample sizes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations103
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207