...
首页> 外文期刊>American journal of psychiatry >Dr. Wagner and Colleagues Reply
【24h】

Dr. Wagner and Colleagues Reply

机译:瓦格纳博士及其同事回复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

To the Editor: We appreciate the comments of Dr. Waslick on our study. First, with regard to study subjects, DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed were required for both our study and the study conducted by Geller et al. However, Geller et al. also required subjects to have at least one cardinal symptom of elation and/or grandiosity. Also, Geller et al. redefined rftanic/hypomanic episodes in their study as the entire length of illness, whereas we used DSM-IV definitions for manic episodes. This may account for some differences between the two study groups. Second, in response to Dr. Waslick and Dr. Lysne et al., the investigators in the study had the option of discontinuing stimulants prior to randomization in this study if they thought that stimulants were exacerbating the subject's mania. The presence of concurrent ADHD and stimulant treatment did not affect baseline ratings of psychopathology or treatment response.
机译:致编辑:感谢Waslick博士对我们的研究发表的评论。首先,对于研究对象,我们的研究和Geller等人进行的研究均需要针对躁狂或混合性躁郁症的DSM-IV标准。然而,盖勒等。还要求受试者至少具有一种兴高采烈和/或雄壮的基本症状。此外,盖勒等。在他们的研究中将rftanic /低躁狂发作重新定义为整个疾病的发作时间,而我们将DSM-IV定义用于躁狂发作。这可能解释了两个研究组之间的某些差异。其次,针对Waslick博士和Lysne博士等人的回应,如果研究人员认为刺激物加剧了受试者的躁狂症,则他们可以选择在随机化之前停用刺激物。并发多动症和兴奋剂治疗的存在不影响心理病理学或治疗反应的基线等级。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号