Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis

And which placebo is your doctor prescribing post-stroke?
A blogger discussing it here(Improbable Research);
A cheerfully depressing investigation: “Which Placebo to Cure Depression?”
The abstract here; You do expect your doctor to have read all the associated research?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/230
Florian Naudet123*, Bruno Millet23, Philippe Charlier45, Jean Michel Reymann67, Anne Solène Maria18 and Bruno Falissard189
Author Affiliations
1 INSERM U669, Maison de Solenn, 97 Boulevard de Port Royal, 75679 Paris Cedex 14, France
2 Université de Rennes 1, EA-4712 Behavior and Basal Ganglia Unit, Rennes, France
3 Centre Hospitalier Guillaume Régnier, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Psychiatrie, Rennes, France
4 Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, University Hospital R. Poincaré (AP-HP, UVSQ), Garches, France
5 Laboratory of Medical Ethics, University of Paris 5, 45 St Pères Street, 75006 Paris, France
6 Centre d’Investigation Clinique CIC-P INSERM 0203, Hôpital de Pontchaillou, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes et Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France
7 Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Expérimentale et Clinique, Faculté de Médecine, CS34317, 2 Avenue du Pr Léon Bernard, 35043 Rennes, France
8 Université Paris-Sud and Université Paris Descartes, UMR-S0669, Paris, France
9 AP-HP, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Département de santé publique, Villejuif, France
For all author emails, please log on.
BMC Medicine 2013, 11:230  doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-230

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/230

Received:7 February 2013
Accepted:4 October 2013
Published:25 October 2013
© 2013 Naudet et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation.

Methods

Published and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an “evidence network”: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs.
Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested.

Results

The three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias.

Conclusion

The presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder.

A cheerfully depressing investigation: “Which Placebo to Cure Depression?” - See more at: http://www.improbable.com/2013/12/08/a-cheerfully-depressing-investigation-which-placebo-to-cure-depression/#sthash.lZb70p6B.dpuf
A cheerfully depressing investigation: “Which Placebo to Cure Depression?” - See more at: http://www.improbable.com/2013/12/08/a-cheerfully-depressing-investigation-which-placebo-to-cure-depression/#sthash.lZb70p6B.dpuf
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)