These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20696481)

  • 1. Not as golden as standards should be: interpretation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.
    Kriston L; von Wolff A
    J Affect Disord; 2011 Jan; 128(1-2):175-7. PubMed ID: 20696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.
    Furukawa TA; Akechi T; Azuma H; Okuyama T; Higuchi T
    J Clin Psychopharmacol; 2007 Oct; 27(5):531-4. PubMed ID: 17873700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Derivation of a definition of remission on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale corresponding to the definition of remission on the Hamilton rating scale for depression.
    Zimmerman M; Posternak MA; Chelminski I
    J Psychiatr Res; 2004; 38(6):577-82. PubMed ID: 15458853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials.
    Spielmans GI; McFall JP
    J Nerv Ment Dis; 2006 Nov; 194(11):845-52. PubMed ID: 17102709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Relationship between the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in depressed elderly: a meta-analysis.
    Heo M; Murphy CF; Meyers BS
    Am J Geriatr Psychiatry; 2007 Oct; 15(10):899-905. PubMed ID: 17911366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The clinical significance of antidepressant treatment effects cannot be derived from placebo-verum response differences.
    Hegerl U; Mergl R
    J Psychopharmacol; 2010 Apr; 24(4):445-8. PubMed ID: 19825901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using longitudinal data from a clinical trial in depression to assess the reliability of its outcome scales.
    Laenen A; Alonso A; Molenberghs G; Vangeneugden T; Mallinckrodt CH
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Apr; 43(7):730-8. PubMed ID: 18986657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimizing the ability of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale to discriminate across levels of severity and between antidepressants and placebos.
    Santor DA; Debrota D; Engelhardt N; Gelwicks S
    Depress Anxiety; 2008; 25(9):774-86. PubMed ID: 17935212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale endures.
    Corruble E; Hardy P
    Am J Psychiatry; 2005 Dec; 162(12):2394; author reply 2397-8. PubMed ID: 16330615
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Resolving the onset of antidepressants' clinical actions: critical for clinical practice and new drug development.
    Katz MM; Bowden CL; Berman N; Frazer A
    J Clin Psychopharmacol; 2006 Dec; 26(6):549-53. PubMed ID: 17110809
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: is increased efficiency possible? A post hoc comparison of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Maier and Bech subscales, Clinical Global Impression, and Symptom Checklist-90 scores.
    Ruhé HG; Dekker JJ; Peen J; Holman R; de Jonghe F
    Compr Psychiatry; 2005; 46(6):417-27. PubMed ID: 16275208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Depression, health-related quality of life, and medical cost outcomes of receiving recommended levels of antidepressant treatment.
    Revicki DA; Simon GE; Chan K; Katon W; Heiligenstein J
    J Fam Pract; 1998 Dec; 47(6):446-52. PubMed ID: 9866670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Outcome criteria in antidepressant drug trials: self-rating versus observer-rating scales.
    Möller HJ
    Pharmacopsychiatry; 1991 May; 24(3):71-5. PubMed ID: 1891483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale endures.
    Licht RW; Bech P
    Am J Psychiatry; 2005 Dec; 162(12):2394-5; author reply 2397-8. PubMed ID: 16330614
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical guidelines for establishing remission in patients with depression and anxiety.
    Ballenger JC
    J Clin Psychiatry; 1999; 60 Suppl 22():29-34. PubMed ID: 10634353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Randomized clinical trials underestimate the efficacy of antidepressants in less severe depression.
    Isacsson G; Adler M
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2012 Jun; 125(6):453-9. PubMed ID: 22176585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing remission in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan disability scale.
    Sheehan DV; Harnett-Sheehan K; Spann ME; Thompson HF; Prakash A
    Int Clin Psychopharmacol; 2011 Mar; 26(2):75-83. PubMed ID: 21102344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Maudsley Staging Method for treatment-resistant depression: prediction of longer-term outcome and persistence of symptoms.
    Fekadu A; Wooderson SC; Markopoulou K; Cleare AJ
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Jul; 70(7):952-7. PubMed ID: 19457299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials.
    Zimmerman M; Posternak MA; Chelminski I
    Essent Psychopharmacol; 2004; 6(1):45-58. PubMed ID: 15612653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Elevated C-reactive protein in depression: a predictor of good long-term outcome with antidepressants and poor outcome with psychotherapy.
    Harley J; Luty S; Carter J; Mulder R; Joyce P
    J Psychopharmacol; 2010 Apr; 24(4):625-6. PubMed ID: 19282426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.