Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study With Reboxetine in Inpatients With Severe Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine, a unique selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, were compared with those of placebo in a 6-week, randomized, double-blind study of hospitalized patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Fifty-two patients (25 in the placebo group, 27 in the reboxetine group) were included in the efficacy analysis. Sixteen (64%) of those in the placebo group and four (15%) in the reboxetine group were withdrawn during the study because of lack of efficacy. Improvement in the mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score at last assessment was significantly greater in the reboxetine group than in the placebo group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the response rate to treatment, defined as > or =50% reduction in HAM-D total score, was 74% for patients who received reboxetine compared with 20% for those who received placebo (p < 0.001). A significantly greater response with reboxetine than with placebo was seen as early as day 10 of treatment (p = 0.006). The therapeutic efficacy of reboxetine was substantiated by improvement in mean scores on the Zung Self-Rating Scale and on the Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness and Global Improvement scales. Reboxetine was well tolerated, and only one patient in each group withdrew because of adverse events. Dry mouth, insomnia, blurred vision, sweating, and constipation were recorded more frequently in the reboxetine group than in the placebo group. There was a tendency toward orthostatic changes in the systolic blood pressure, but this was not clinically significant. This study demonstrated that reboxetine is significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe major depressive disorder and is well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".