Effectiveness and safety of long-term benzodiazepine use in anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term benzodiazepines (BZDs) use is not endorsed in the treatment guidelines for anxiety disorders, but is prevalent in the real-world clinical settings. A systematic literature review was performed by using PubMed (last search: May 2019) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or maintenance studies following RCT that examined the effectiveness of BZDs in patients with anxiety disorders for a duration of 13 weeks or more. Meta-analyses were then conducted regarding changes in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores from baseline through endpoint, all-cause discontinuation, side effects, and the numbers of panic attacks at endpoint. Eight studies were identified (N = 1228). There were no significant differences in all outcomes between BZDs and antidepressants after the initial 8-week treatment. While no significant difference was noted in the HAM-A score changes between BZDs and placebo, BZDs resulted in a lower discontinuation rate and more frequent constipation and dry mouth than placebo. Our study indicates that for those who respond to an initial 8-week treatment, continuing BZDs is equivalent to antidepressants in efficacy and safety. However, the limited number of studies warranted further investigations of the long-term effectiveness and safety of BZDs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".