RT期刊文章SR电子T1安慰剂效应的动力是什么?回顾性研究在试验(P2.040)摩根富林明神经病学神经学乔FD Lippincott Willi首页ams &威尔金斯SP P2.040 VO 86是16补充A1丹尼尔Goldenholz A1马克库克A1威廉罗伯特·莫斯A1西奥多·年2016 UL //www.ez-admanager.com/content/86/16_Supplement/P2.040.abstract AB目的:确定癫痫的自然波动的影响“安慰剂效应。“背景:在临床试验中,安慰剂组发作50 [percnt]应答率速率[percnt],归因于回归平均,或心理影响。然而,最近的一项研究发现,自然发作频率波动可能重现“安慰剂反应。”这种效应可以通过评估试验与测试时间逆向流动(好像“基线”排在了最后,不是第一次),有效地消除向均数回归和心理影响。方法:我们回顾性的3项研究进行了分析,比较两个基线两个月的测试期,评估50 [percnt]应答率在传统和逆转时间。来源是(A)的随机试验,经颅磁刺激(TMS), (B)的纵向研究植入记录装置(NeuroVista)和(C) seizuretracker.com,一个大规模的病人报告没收日记数字接口。在(C),患者选择使用基线期:他们需要> 4发作,2癫痫每3周以上,没有控制发作期25天。开始时间顺序模拟从日记开始0至24个月。结果:在(A),应答率为16.6 (percnt)和25 [percnt]在传统和逆转时间,N = 7,从而安慰剂(所有)。在(B),利率20 [percnt]和[percnt] 33在传统和逆转时间,N = 15。 In (C), excluding seizure-freedom, the response rates were 15-31[percnt] in traditional time regardless of start time (N=1116), and 15-28[percnt] in reverse time regardless of start time (N=931). The number of patients varied because of the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: In several clinical trials and patient reported data, natural disease fluctuations produced comparable response rates regardless of temporal direction, suggesting regression to the mean and psychological influences do not play a major role in “placebo effects.”Disclosure: Dr. Goldenholz has nothing to disclose. Dr. Cook has nothing to disclose. Dr. Moss has nothing to disclose. Dr. Theodore has nothing to disclose.Sunday, April 17 2016, 8:30 am-5:30 pm