Influence of covariates on heterogeneity in Hamilton Anxiety Scale ratings in placebo-controlled trials of benzodiazepines in generalized anxiety disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder is a common psychiatric condition that is associated with decreased quality of life and significant disability. Benzodiazepines are anti-anxiety drugs used widely in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. This study examines the influence of several variables on benzodiazepine efficacy in generalized anxiety disorder. METHOD: We performed a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials with benzodiazepines in generalized anxiety disorder. Fifty-eight studies were deemed eligible to include in the meta-analysis. The studies dated from 1977 to 2013 and included over 5400 participants. From each paper, we extracted: benzodiazepine name and dose, dosing regimen, baseline Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, change in HAM-A score at study endpoint, drop-out rate, year of study publication, diagnostic criteria used, study size, study duration, location, any conflicts of interest and side-effect profile. We then assessed the influence, direct and indirect, of individual variables on the primary outcome (mean difference at endpoint, HAM-A score). RESULTS: Three factors were shown to be associated statistically with change in HAM-A; baseline HAM-A for benzodiazepine arm, baseline HAM-A for the placebo arm, and duration of the study. A higher baseline HAM-A in both arms was associated with a greater mean difference in HAM-A. A shorter study length was also associated with a greater mean difference. DISCUSSION: The major factors determining benzodiazepine response was baseline anxiety level for the benzodiazepine arm and study duration. In any design of further meta-analyses and clinical trials for generalized anxiety disorder we suggest that these should be considered these as confounding factors.
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 | 0.067 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.069 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".