MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411776426

[Use of St. John's Wort for depression in primary care - a non-interventional study].

2011· article· en· W2411776426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berthold Musselmann, R Rychlik, Martin Burkart

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamdMedicineDepression (economics)PlaceboAdverse effectClinical trialPsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicineAnxiety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild to moderate depression is frequently treated by general practitioners in Germany, quite often with St. John's Wort preparations. In contrast, controlled clinical trials were usually performed in psychiatric specialist centers or hospitals. METHODS: In this one-armed, prospective non-interventional study 408 general practitioners documented 1300 patients with mild or moderate depression, which received 600 mg St. John's Wort extract WS 5570 once daily. The observation period was 8 to 10 weeks. Therapeuticeffectand tolerabilityof WS 5570 were investigated. Additionally, doctors were asked for their experienceswith and attitudes to depression therapy and complementary medicine, reasons for administration of St. Johns Wort and its contribution totreatmentsuccess. RESULTS: 807 patients, who were included in the analysis corresponding to the protocol, had rates for successful treatment (> 50% decrease of the Hamilton 17-item depression scale [HAMD]) 79,3%, respectively for remission 68,4%. Six patients (0.46%) dropped out for adverse drug reactions. For comparison with the results of an earlier controlled clinical study (WS 5570 600 mg/d vs. 1200 mg/d vs. placebo), which was conducted mainly by medical specialists, 257 patients complying with the inclusion criteria of the controlled study were analysed. HAMD-scores at entry (22.9) and improvement after 2 (-6.6) and 6 weeks (-10.8) were very similar to those reported in the controlled clinical trial. 202 evaluable questionnaires completed by 408 doctors were available. Doctors regarded self-healing and placebo effects as important therapeuticfactors; however, in 75% of the cases they assigned at least 50% of treatment success to the St. John's Wort preparation, and in 19% it was regarded as the only reason for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners consider St. John's Wort extract WS 5570 a well tolerable therapeutic instrument contributing more than 50% to total treatment effect. Causal conclusions to the efficacy of WS 5570 cannot be drawn in this study because of the non-interventional design. Efficacy of treatment of mild to moderate depression in primary care is comparable to findings in specialist-based controlled clinical studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207