Abstract
The February 1992 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry contained the summary report from the Second Phase of the Cross-National Collaborative Panic Study (CNCPS) on a clinical treatment trial of panic disorder. This manuscript was submitted in 1988 and took four years of response to critiques and revisions to generate a manuscript that was acceptable to the Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry. In the same issue, Marks et al (1992) provided a ‘Comment’ which was critical of the study, calling it an “elephantine labour” which “resulted in the delivery of a mouse” and was highly critical of the statistical analyses and interpretation. Moreover, their ‘Comment’ was a springboard for discussing general issues in the treatment of panic disorder and the relative value of pharmacological versus psychological treatments. In our opinion, the Marks et al ‘Comment’ is inaccurate and misleading. At many points, they make reference to topics being missing that are actually addressed to our manuscript and they presented a statistical summary in Table 1 (p. 203) of our data which was inaccurate. In this Comment, we address each item criticised.
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. References;Global Pharmaceuticals;2006
2. Treating AIDS;Global Pharmaceuticals;2006
3. Pharmaceutical Governance;Global Pharmaceuticals;2006
4. Pharmaceuticals in Urban Ecologies;Global Pharmaceuticals;2006
5. Addiction Markets;Global Pharmaceuticals;2006