Identifying Patients with Therapy-Resistant Depression by using Factor Analysis

Andreasson, Kalle; Liest, V.; Lunde, Marianne; Martiny, Klaus; Undén, M; Dissing, Steen; Bech, Per

doi:10.1055/s-0030-1263166

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was parallel to the MES item of concentration disturbances with an effect size of 0.50. In other words, concentration disturbances seem to be an important feature of the therapy-resistant patients; this is in agreement with our principal component analysis of the Montgomery-Åsberg depression scale (MADRS) and the MES [3]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In our trials on the concomitant use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial pulsed electromagnetic fields (T-PEMF) and antidepressants in patients with treatment-resistant depression [1–3], we have focussed on the clinician-administrated depression scales, for example, the Hamilton depression scale (HAM-D 17 ) or the Montgomery-Åsberg depression scale (MADRS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Pharmacopsychometric Triangle to Illustrate the Effectiveness of T-PEMF Concomitant with Antidepressants in Treatment Resistant Patients: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Sham-Controlled Trial Revisited with Focus on the Patient-Reported Outcomes

Bech

Gefke²,

Lunde³

et al. 2011

Depression Research and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Our T-PEMF trial has been revisited with focus on the pharmacopsychometric triangle in which effect size is used when comparing wanted versus unwanted clinical effects and quality of life as outcomes. In this analysis, we have especially focused on the self-reported HAM-D6. Methods. The antidepressive medication which the patients were resistant to was kept unchanged during the five weeks of active versus sham T-PEMF. Results. In total 21, patients received active T-PEMF, and 19 patients received sham T-PEMF. The effect size was 1.02 and 0.90, respectively, on HAM-D6 and HAM-D6-S. Concerning side effects, the active T-PEMF reduced the baseline score on concentration problems with an effect size of 0.44 while inducing more autonomic symptoms than sham T-PEMF with an effect size of −0.41. The advantage of active over sham T-PEMF obtained an effect size of 0.48. Conclusion. Active T-PEMF was found superior to sham T-PEMF within the pharmacopsychometric triangle with a clinically significant effect size level above 0.40.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pharmacopsychometric Triangle to Illustrate the Effectiveness of T-PEMF Concomitant with Antidepressants in Treatment Resistant Patients: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Sham-Controlled Trial Revisited with Focus on the Patient-Reported Outcomes

Bech

Gefke²,

Lunde³

et al. 2011

Depression Research and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the patients who continued, 50% tolerated symptoms (Table 4) like headache, difficulty sleeping, sexual problems, poor concentration, fatigue, and decreased energy. Such symptoms might be considered as true side effects to citalopram (12) or, alternatively, as the symptom structure in citalopram-resistant patients (13). Our results indicate (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…In antidepressant trials, A denotes the antidepressant activity. With reference to citalopram, these symptoms might be considered pure side effects (12) as well as treatment-resistant depression symptoms (13). The HAM-D 6 includes the following HAM-D 17 -items: depressed mood, guilt, work and interests, somatic symptoms general, psychomotor retardation, and psychic anxiety.…”

Section: The Pharmacopsychometric Trianglementioning

confidence: 99%