Sanchez L E, Adams P B, Uysal S, Hallin A, Campbell M, Small A M
Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical Center, New York 10016, USA.
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1995;31(2):371-8.
This study compared live ratings with ratings of videotapes and compared response to clomipramine with response to haloperidol in 8 subjects, mean age 5.62 years, who met criteria for autism. They were consecutive admissions to a pilot study of clomipramine (n = 4) or a double-blind, placebo controlled study of haloperidol (n = 4). Live ratings were performed by two raters at the end of the pre-treatment placebo baseline period and at the end of the drug treatment period on the CPRS and the CGI and were videotaped. Employing the same instruments, these videotapes were rated by two raters who did not know the subjects and were blind to study design, treatment, and study phase. Ratings of videotapes significantly differed from live ratings. A treatment effect for haloperidol was detected only on live ratings and not on ratings of videotapes. No treatment effect was detected for clomipramine in either live or videotape ratings.
本研究比较了8名符合自闭症标准的受试者(平均年龄5.62岁)的现场评分与录像带评分,并比较了氯米帕明与氟哌啶醇的疗效。他们是连续入选氯米帕明初步研究(n = 4)或氟哌啶醇双盲、安慰剂对照研究(n = 4)的受试者。在治疗前安慰剂基线期结束时以及药物治疗期结束时,由两名评估者使用儿童精神评定量表(CPRS)和临床总体印象量表(CGI)对受试者进行现场评分,并进行录像。由另外两名不了解受试者情况且对研究设计、治疗和研究阶段不知情的评估者,使用相同工具对这些录像带进行评分。录像带评分与现场评分存在显著差异。仅在现场评分中检测到氟哌啶醇的治疗效果,而在录像带评分中未检测到。在现场评分或录像带评分中均未检测到氯米帕明的治疗效果。