“…These studies identified few consistent differences between symptomatic volunteers and clinical subjects (Krupnick et al, 1986;Covi et al, 1979;Brauzer and Goldstein, 1973;Hersen et al, 1981;Thase et al, 1984). The few studies which looked at attrition and treatment response rates for the two groups found no differences between them (Last et al, 1984;Breckenridge et al, 1985;Krupnick et al, 1986;Covi et al, 1979;Hersen et al, 1981;Thase et al, 1984).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Concerns about the generalizability of findings from clinical trials include worry that trial results may be skewed due to design issues: the inflexibility of entry criteria, the limited length of evaluation and treatment (for most trials), the restrictive or manualized form that treatment usually takes, and the bias incurred during subject recruitment (Krupnick et al, 1986). This bias is of particular interest because the majority of patients who participate in clinical trials are recruited from advertisements in the media (symptomatic volunteers), while the majority of individuals treated in clinical practice come to practitioners by other means (Amori et al, 1989;Krupnick et al, 1986;Last et al, 1984;Breckenridge et al, 1985;Brauzer and Goldstein, 1973;Mitchell et al, 1988;Covi et al, 1979). There is concern that individuals who respond to advertisements may be different from patients who seek treatment from mental health professionals.…”
“…These studies identified few consistent differences between symptomatic volunteers and clinical subjects (Krupnick et al, 1986;Covi et al, 1979;Brauzer and Goldstein, 1973;Hersen et al, 1981;Thase et al, 1984). The few studies which looked at attrition and treatment response rates for the two groups found no differences between them (Last et al, 1984;Breckenridge et al, 1985;Krupnick et al, 1986;Covi et al, 1979;Hersen et al, 1981;Thase et al, 1984).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Concerns about the generalizability of findings from clinical trials include worry that trial results may be skewed due to design issues: the inflexibility of entry criteria, the limited length of evaluation and treatment (for most trials), the restrictive or manualized form that treatment usually takes, and the bias incurred during subject recruitment (Krupnick et al, 1986). This bias is of particular interest because the majority of patients who participate in clinical trials are recruited from advertisements in the media (symptomatic volunteers), while the majority of individuals treated in clinical practice come to practitioners by other means (Amori et al, 1989;Krupnick et al, 1986;Last et al, 1984;Breckenridge et al, 1985;Brauzer and Goldstein, 1973;Mitchell et al, 1988;Covi et al, 1979). There is concern that individuals who respond to advertisements may be different from patients who seek treatment from mental health professionals.…”
“…Recruiting either professional volunteers (i.e. people who participate in multiple studies for the compensation) or symptomatic volunteers [4] can introduce bias.…”
Section: At What Point Do We As Readers/reviewers Researchers and Pomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some countries, they can be recruited from general practitioners. Other countries have relied on volunteers recruited through advertisements [4] . With this latter approach and similar to our example of the online survey, the participation rate is totally unknown with corresponding unknown generalizability.…”
Section: Declining Participation In Research Studiesmentioning
“…Patients attended either the offices of several general practitioners (GP) or the Symptomatic Volunteer Clinic (SVC) of the Philadelphia General Hospital. The clinic consisted of patients recruited by newspaper advertisements and was initiated several years ago based on the Miami model of Brauzer and Goldstein (6). The practicality of participa tion by such patients in short-term drug trials has been reviewed elsewhere (7).…”
The response of 134 anxious neurotic outpatients to lorazepam, diazepam,
and placebo was assessed in a 4-week double-blind trial. Both active drugs produced significantly
more symptom reduction than placebo. Lorazepam, however, proved effective primarily
in those patients who did not complain of sedation, and produced greatest improvement
in initially sicker patients. Sedation was significantly more disturbing to lorazepam-treated
patients than to diazepam-treated patients. Present findings suggested that 3 mg/day
of lorazepam may be too high a dosage for mildly anxious patients, while 15 mg/day of
diazepam seems an appropriate dosage for mildly anxious patients but may be too low a
dosage for highly anxious patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.