Clinical study of duloxetine in treatment of persistent somatoform pain disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:To explore the therapeutic effect and safety of duloxetine in treating patients with persistent somatoform pain disorder(PSPD).METHODS:A randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled and follow-up study were taken.70 PSPD patients were involved in our study,randomly divided into 2 groups separately using the duloxetine and the placebo.The patients were evaluated with simplified mcGill score chart for paining(SFMPQ),hamilton depression scale(HAMD),hamilton anxiety scale(HAMA) and treatment emergent symptom scale(TESS) before and after treatment,(1,2,4 and 6weeks),respectively.Those patients with the reducing score rate of SF-MPQ in present rating index(PRI)≥50%were involved in the follow-up study and evaluated with SF-MPQ,HAMD,HAMA and TESS after 3,6 months.RESULTS:All the scores of SF-VIPQ,HAMD and HAMA 1week after treatment in both groups were significantly different with those scores before treatment(P 0.05).The scores of present pain intensity(PPI)after one week treatment,and the scores of SFMPQ,HAMD and HAMA after 2,4 and 6 weeks of the treatment were significantly different between the two groups(P 0.05).The total side effects in treatment group were higher than that in the control group(P 0.05).However,there was no significant difference in the incidence of single side effects.There were 17 patients with the reducing score rate of PRI-50%who were involved in the follow-up study.Comparing to 6 weeks after treatment,no significant difference were observed at 3and 6months after treatment(P 0.05).CONCLUSION:Duloxetine is effective and safety treatment of patient with persistent somatoform pain disorder.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".