Abstract
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program General Effectiveness Report statistical analyses are criticized. Their analyses, which fostered the belief that the active treatments were indistinguishable, were compromised by an inappropriately stringent level of significance with regard to both heterogeneity of slope and pairwise group differences. Once slope heterogeneity is detected, the Johnson-Neyman technique is more appropriate than arbitrary sample subdivision. All of these tactics lowered power substantially.
Our reanalysis indicates a reasonable ordering for the treatments with medication superior to the psychotherapies and the psychotherapies somewhat superior to placebo. These effects are particularly marked among the more symptomatic and impaired patients. The lack of dosage by severity analyses renders the severity findings ambiguous.
Scientific and public health implications are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address reprint requests to: Donald F. Klein, M.D., 722 West 168th Street. New York, New York, 10032.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, D., Ross, D. Reanalysis of The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program General Effectiveness Report. Neuropsychopharmacol 8, 241–251 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.1993.27
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.1993.27
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Rumination and Emotional Modulation of the Attentional Blink
Cognitive Therapy and Research (2022)
-
Improved statistical analysis of moclobemide dose effects on panic disorder treatment
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience (2010)
-
Conflict of Interest, Journal Review, and Publication Policy
Neuropsychopharmacology (2008)