Diagnose und Therapie der Depressionen für den Praktiker

Kielholz, P

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86197-0

Cited by 74 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The distinction between vital and personal depressions was based on purely symptomatological criteria [1, 2], The dichotomy endogenous and neurotic depression, too, could have a purely symptomatological connotation [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Several au thors used etiology as the main classificatory principle [9,10] and distinguished categories like psychogenic depres sion, neurotic depression, organic depression, involution al depression and many others. Since the series of depressogenic factors is virtually unlimited, the number of depression types distinguished in this manner is infinite.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis, the Rate-Limiting Factor of Biological Depression Research

Praag¹

1993

Neuropsychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The third edition of the DSM provided a standardized, operationalized classification system of mood disorders. In this paper, the question is raised whether this system is a good starting point for biological depression research. The question is answered in the negative and the reasons why are being discussed. The proposed mood disorders are not properly validated and utterly heterogenous and overlapping. An etiological axis is wanting and no hypothesis as to the relations between axis I and II diagnoses is required. The comorbidity problem is not satisfactorily resolved. The system leaves no room for a dimensional/functional analysis of mood and personality disorders. The frequent revisions that are only to a small extent based on preconceived research, lead to havoc in the research arena. The DSM III classification is considered to be the single most important factor hampering biological depression research. Ways to remedy the situation are pointed out.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis, the Rate-Limiting Factor of Biological Depression Research

Praag¹

1993

Neuropsychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Die Begriffe «larvierte Depression» [8] und «maskierte Depression» [9] wurden schliesslich weltweit am häufigsten verwendet und im Rahmen einer internationalen Consensuskonferenz als didaktisches Konzept folgendermassen definiert: Depressive Zustandsbilder jeder Genese, bei denen die somatischen Symptome so stark im Vordergrund stehen, dass sie das depressive Geschehen vollständig überdecken, werden als larvierte Depression bezeichnet [10]. Mit fortschreitender Entwicklung operationalisierter, multiaxialer diagnostischer Kriterien (DSM und ICD) konzentrierte man sich auf einen deskriptiv atheoretischen Diagnostikansatz und unterliess eine Gewichtung «psychischer» gegenüber «somatischer» Symptome.…”

Section: Diagnostische Konzepte Und Epidemiologieunclassified

Diagnostische und therapeutische Bedeutung von Schmerzsymptomen der Depression

Delinl-Stula¹,

Lehtinen²,

Holsboer‐Trachsler³

2006

Swiss Arch Neurol Psychiatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Imipramine is one of the oldest antidepressants and is often referred to as a classical tricyclic antidepressant. According to the classification of Kielholz [12], it is to be placed between drive-enhancing and sedating antidepressants, whereas the studies cited above indicate that diclofensine should be placed rather among the drive-enhancing antidepres sants. The aim of the study reported here was therefore to compare the two antidepressants -diclofensine and the classical tricyclic imipramine -with regard to their effica cy, profile of action, and tolerability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diclofensine and Imipramine

Capponi¹,

Hormazabal²,

Schmid-Burgk

1985

Neuropsychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixty out-patients with different nosological types of depression were assigned at random to three different treatment groups and were treated under double-blind conditions for 6 weeks. Two groups received diclofensine in capsules of either 15 or 25 mg, and a third group received capsules with imipramine 25 mg. The dosage schedule provided an initial dose of 2 capsules/day which was to be gradually increased up to a maximum dose of 9 capsules/day. The daily mean dosages actually given over the entire trial period were 64.0 mg diclofensine for group I, 97.6 mg diclofensine for group II, and 102.9 mg imipramine for group III. All treatment groups showed a good improvement of the patients’ clinical states within the 6-week period, but the imipramine-treated patients improved more slowly than the diclofensine-treated patients. This was demonstrated by the mean total scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Evaluation of different factors of the HDRS yielded differences between the two drugs in favour of diclofensine for the factor ‘inhibition’ from the end of week 1 until the end of week 3 and for the factor ‘somatic complaints’ during week 3. Side effects were – dose dependently – less frequent, less severe, and lasted shorter in the diclofensine-treated patients than in the imipramine-treated ones. The most frequently reported side effects in the diclofensine-treated patients were dry mouth, insomnia, dizziness, and agitation. In the imipramine group side effects were mainly dry mouth, tremor, dizziness, and sleepiness. In conclusion, this study shows an impressively faster onset of efficacy of diclofensine over imipramine, a finding which should be replicated by further studies.

show abstract

Diagnose und Therapie der Depressionen für den Praktiker

Cited by 74 publications

References 0 publications

Diagnosis, the Rate-Limiting Factor of Biological Depression Research

Diagnosis, the Rate-Limiting Factor of Biological Depression Research

Diagnostische und therapeutische Bedeutung von Schmerzsymptomen der Depression

Diclofensine and Imipramine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About