Reported trial results for Depression and Anxiety

85 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT05269186 · results posted 18 June 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 256 people in total — 128 in a group who used virtual reality and 128 who received normal care. The trial was measuring levels of anxiety in patients, comparing those who used a virtual reality session against those who received standard care. Most participants completed the study: 120 in the virtual reality group and 122 in the normal care group finished, with a small number (8 and 6 respectively) not completing it. Anxiety was measured using a well-known self-reported questionnaire called the State Anxiety Scale (developed by Spielberger), where participants answer 20 questions about how they are feeling. Scores can range from 20 to 80, with higher numbers suggesting greater anxiety. As a reference point, scores of 39–40 or above are commonly used to indicate a level of anxiety that may be clinically significant. The reported data shows that the virtual reality group had an average anxiety score of 32, while the normal care group had an average score of 36.2. Both scores sat below the commonly referenced cut-off point of 39–40. It is important to note that only one outcome measure was included in the data reported to ClinicalTrials.gov, and no additional secondary outcome results were provided — those figures were not reported and cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT06302868 · results posted 18 May 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 54 people in total — 29 in a group receiving therapy sessions that used virtual reality delivered via telemedicine, and 25 in a group receiving standard telemedicine-based therapy (without virtual reality). Both groups were being treated for a specific phobia (an intense fear of a particular thing or situation). The trial measured phobia symptom severity as its main focus, and also looked at general anxiety, depression, the relationship between the therapist and the patient, and how satisfied participants were with their treatment. By the time the trial was finished, 14 people had completed the virtual reality group and 14 had completed the standard telemedicine group. The reported data shows that on the main phobia symptom scale (scored 0–4, where higher means more severe), both groups started at similar levels — around 2.80 for the virtual reality group and 3.18 for the standard telemedicine group. At a mid-point check these scores had dropped to approximately 1.51 and 1.55 respectively, and by the final measurement they were reported as 0.86 and 0.56. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows general anxiety scores (on a 0–21 scale) moved from 6.03 to 7.14 in the virtual reality group and from 7.68 to 3.71 in the standard telemedicine group. Depression scores (on a 0–27 scale) moved from 4.62 to 7.43 in the virtual reality group and from 7.60 to 4.86 in the standard telemedicine group. Treatment satisfaction scores (on an 8–32 scale) were reported as 30.36 and 31.43 for the virtual reality group at two timepoints, and 31.47 and 31.07 for the standard telemedicine group — both close to the top of the scale. Scores for the therapist–patient relationship were similarly high in both groups across measurement points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05585905 · results posted 18 May 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 children in total, spread across four groups that each experienced both virtual reality (VR) and basic behaviour guidance (BBG) during dental sealant placement, just in different orders. One participant did not complete the study, leaving 19 who finished. The trial was measuring anxiety and behaviour by tracking changes in heart rate (beats per minute) during the dental procedure compared to each child's heart rate before it began. The reported data shows that heart rate changes were recorded for each group under both conditions. When children received VR during sealant placement, the reported average heart rate changes across the four groups were −2, −6.25, −8.8, and −6.25 beats per minute respectively — meaning heart rates were on average somewhat lower during the procedure than at baseline for all groups. When children received basic behaviour guidance instead, the reported average changes were −2, −2.75, −3, and −0.5 beats per minute across the four groups — also lower than baseline, but by smaller amounts. No other outcome data was reported in the submitted results. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial and the data as submitted does not include information about how meaningful these differences are in a broader sense. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT07253831 · results posted 13 May 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 70 people in total — 35 who received hand reflexology massage and 35 who received standard care only. All 70 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring two things: fatigue levels (using a questionnaire called the FACIT-Fatigue Scale, where a higher score means less fatigue, out of a maximum of 52) and anxiety levels (using a questionnaire called the Beck Anxiety Inventory, where a higher score means more anxiety, out of a maximum of 63). Both questionnaires were completed at multiple points during the study. The reported data shows that, for fatigue, the hand reflexology group started with an average score of 24.4 and their score later rose to 29.5 (meaning they reported feeling less fatigued over time). The standard care group started at 21.7 and their score later measured 21.2, showing little change. For anxiety, the reported data shows the hand reflexology group started with an average score of 20.7, which later fell to 12.8 (meaning they reported fewer anxiety symptoms over time). The standard care group started at 23.6 and their score later measured 22.9, again showing little change. The data does not include information about when exactly these measurements were taken beyond there being multiple time points, and no further breakdown was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT06309277 · results posted 8 May 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 46 people in total, split across four treatment sequence groups (12, 13, 11, and 10 participants respectively). The study was testing a treatment for depression and was designed in two parts. Part A compared a 140 mg dose against a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment), while Part B looked at two active doses — 140 mg and 210 mg — over a longer period. By the end of the trial, 36 participants were recorded as having completed it, with 10 not completing across the four groups. The reported data shows that the primary thing being tracked was the number of participants who experienced what are called "treatment-emergent adverse events" — meaning any unwanted health changes that appeared after treatment began. In Part A, 23 out of the placebo group participants and 43 out of the 140 mg group participants had such events recorded. For depression symptom severity (measured using a standard rating scale called the MADRS, where a lower score means fewer symptoms), the reported data shows that at 24 hours, the 140 mg group's scores dropped by an average of about 12.1 points from their starting point, compared to about 5.9 points for the placebo group. At Day 8, the reported drops were about 10.5 points for the 140 mg group and about 5.4 points for the placebo group. The reported data also shows figures from Part B, which looked at how many participants reached what is called "remission" — meaning their depression score fell to 10 or below on the scale. At Day 42, approximately 38.9% of those on 140 mg and 66.7% of those on 210 mg were reported to have reached this threshold. At Day 67, the figures were reported as 50.0% for the 140 mg group and 66.7% for the 210 mg group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05044546 · results posted 5 February 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05044546) was conducted in several stages and involved a small number of participants overall. An initial stage (Aim 1) involved 11 people who took part in focus groups or individual interviews. A small pilot study (Aim 3) included 9 people — 3 assigned to a Health and Wellness (HW) program and 6 assigned to a Behavioural Activation (BA) program, with 8 completing that stage. A final randomised stage (Aim 4) included just 6 people — 3 in each group — and all 6 completed it. The trial was looking at two main things: smoking abstinence (whether people had stopped smoking, confirmed by both self-report and a breath or saliva test) and depression symptoms (measured using a standard questionnaire called the PHQ-9, where scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depression). The reported data shows the following numbers for the pilot study stage (Aim 3): when it came to stopping smoking at around 10 weeks, 2 out of 3 participants in the HW group and 1 out of 6 in the BA group reported abstinence. For depression scores at that same point, the HW group had an average score of 2 (in the minimal range) and the BA group had an average score of 7 (in the mild range). For the randomised stage (Aim 4), the reported data shows that at around 4½ months after giving birth, 2 out of 3 participants in the HW group and 1 out of 3 in the BA group reported abstinence. Depression scores at that follow-up point were reported as 0.67 (on average) for the HW group and 7.34 (on average) for the BA group. It is important to note that the numbers of participants in this trial were very small — particularly in the later stages, where only 3 people were in each group — so these figures reflect a very early-stage study rather than a large-scale test. The reported data does not allow for broad conclusions about how these programs perform more generally. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT06954883 · results posted 6 January 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 60 children in total — 30 who experienced augmented reality (AR) distraction during a dental procedure involving a local anaesthetic injection, and 30 who received standard care using a common technique called "Tell-Show-Do," where the dentist explains and demonstrates what will happen before doing it. All 60 children completed the trial. The study was measuring pain during the injection, dental anxiety after the procedure, and heart rate (as a physical sign of anxiety) after the procedure. The reported data shows that children in the AR distraction group scored an average of 2.3 out of 10 on a facial pain scale (where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst pain), compared to an average of 4.5 out of 10 in the standard care group. For dental anxiety, measured using a 15-item questionnaire scored between 15 and 75 (where higher numbers mean greater anxiety), the AR group averaged 17.6 and the standard care group averaged 26.8. For heart rate, measured in beats per minute immediately after the procedure, the AR group averaged 80 beats per minute compared to 89 beats per minute in the standard care group. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include the full detail of how meaningful the differences between groups are from a statistical standpoint, and no information about side effects or harms was included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05980299 · results posted 3 November 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05980299) involved two groups: 130 people in the experimental group (residents receiving the intervention) and 70 staff care partners. Of those who started, 93 experimental participants and 60 staff care partners completed the study. The trial was looking at whether certain behaviours and emotional signs of distress — such as physical or verbal behaviours directed at others, wandering, rejecting care, and low interest or pleasure in activities — changed over a six-month period for residents who showed signs of those difficulties at the start. The reported data shows results only for the experimental group (residents), tracking how many people's symptoms worsened, stayed the same, or improved after six months. For physical behaviours directed at others, 4 people worsened, 13 stayed stable, and 1 improved. For verbal behaviours directed at others, 5 worsened, 12 stayed stable, and 3 improved. For other behaviours not directed at others, 0 worsened, 18 stayed stable, and 0 improved. For rejection of care, 5 worsened, 8 stayed stable, and 0 improved. For wandering, 3 worsened, 8 stayed stable, and 1 improved. For low interest or pleasure in doing things, 3 worsened, 15 stayed stable, and 0 improved. It is worth noting that these counts only reflect participants who showed signs of each specific issue at the start of the trial, so the numbers differ across each measure. No outcome data was reported for the staff care partners group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04482244 · results posted 29 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 adults in total — 25 who received cannabidiol (CBD) and 25 who received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). All 50 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring changes in anxiety and mood using a standardised scale called the Visual Analog Mood Scale (VAMS), where participants mark how they feel on a line from 0 (neutral) to 100 (extreme). Scores are then converted to a standard number called a T-score to allow comparison across people. The trial also tracked side effects, nausea, and pain. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — change in the "afraid/anxious" feeling — the CBD group's average T-score decreased by 19.1 points from before to after taking the treatment, while the placebo group's average T-score decreased by 15.0 points. (A decrease here means participants reported feeling less anxious after taking their assigned treatment; a change of 20 or more T-score points is described by the scale's designers as a "reliable" change.) For the secondary mood measures — which tracked feelings such as confusion, sadness, anger, tiredness, tension, energy, and happiness — the changes reported in both groups were generally small (mostly under 10 T-score points in either direction). On the pain scale (0–10), both groups reported the same average decrease of 0.88 points. For nausea, the reported scores were low in both groups across the two measurement points. Regarding side effects, 2 participants in the CBD group reported treatment-related adverse events, compared with 0 in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03698669 · results posted 26 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 163 people in total — 82 in a programme called "Treating Opioid Patients' Pain and Sadness" (TOPPS) and 81 in a Health Education (HE) comparison group. All participants were taking buprenorphine (a medication used for opioid dependence) and the trial was looking at three main things: how much pain interfered with daily life, how severe their pain was, and their level of depression. Participants were followed up at 3, 6, and 9 months, with around 60–66 people in each group completing each of those check-ins. The reported data shows that at the end of the study period, the TOPPS group scored an average of 5.01 out of 10 on the pain interference scale (where 0 means pain does not interfere at all and 10 means it interferes completely), compared to 4.67 in the Health Education group. For pain severity — rated on a 0–10 scale — the reported average was 5.17 in the TOPPS group and 5.02 in the Health Education group. Depression was measured on a 0–27 scale; the TOPPS group averaged 10.91 (sitting in the "moderate" depression range) and the Health Education group averaged 9.21 (sitting in the "mild-to-moderate" range). The reported data also shows that, as a secondary measure, 63 out of 82 people in the TOPPS group and 61 out of 81 people in the Health Education group were still engaged in buprenorphine treatment at 12 months after joining the study. No other secondary outcome figures were reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT06111742 · results posted 8 May 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 178 participants across three groups. There were 37 children and 37 of their carers in an "Interactive Gaming Group" (using a system called BERT), another 37 children and 37 carers in a "Standard of Care" group (receiving usual treatment), and 30 healthcare professionals. The trial was measuring anxiety levels in children going into surgery, anxiety in their carers, how smoothly the anaesthetic process went for the children, and what healthcare staff thought about the BERT gaming system. The reported data shows that for children's anxiety — measured using a scored scale where higher numbers mean more anxiety — the average change in score from the start of the process to entering the operating room was 5 points in the Interactive Gaming Group, compared to 21.4 points in the Standard of Care group. A second anxiety measurement taken at the point of anaesthetic induction showed an average change of 0.18 points in the Interactive Gaming Group, compared to 8.9 points in the Standard of Care group. For carers' anxiety (also measured on a scale where higher numbers mean more anxiety), the reported average change was -0.18 in the Interactive Gaming Group and 1.89 in the Standard of Care group. For how smoothly the anaesthetic process went for children (scored 0–9, where lower is better), the average score was 1.0 in the Interactive Gaming Group and 2.1 in the Standard of Care group. Regarding the healthcare professional survey, the reported data shows that 97% felt BERT was useful for reducing anxiety, 97% felt it was feasible in a healthcare setting, 90% would recommend it, and 70% each agreed on two further (unspecified in the data) survey items. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT06357286 · results posted 15 April 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06357286) enrolled 390 participants across four groups: a Control group (70 people), a Stable Income group (80 people), a Predictable Instability group (83 people), and an Unpredictable Instability group (157 people). The vast majority completed the study — 384 out of 390. The trial was measuring depression symptoms using a questionnaire called the PHQ-8, which asks eight questions and produces a total score between 0 and 24, where a higher number means more severe depression symptoms were reported. The reported data shows the average PHQ-8 scores at the end of the study for each group. The Control group scored 7.4 on average, the Stable Income group scored 5.7, the Predictable Instability group scored 6.3, and the Unpredictable Instability group scored 7.4. These are the raw average scores as submitted; no additional breakdown or comparison data (such as how scores may have changed from the start of the trial) was included in the reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04467164 · results posted 27 March 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 people split into two groups of 10. It was a crossover study, meaning everyone tried both versions of a nerve-stimulation technique called transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) — a non-invasive method of stimulating a nerve in the ear — with a one-week break in between. One version delivered the stimulation timed to breathing out (exhalatory-gated), and the other timed to breathing in (inhalatory-gated). The trial was measuring whether the timing of the stimulation made a difference to brain activity, heart rate patterns, and symptoms of depression. Two people did not complete the washout period between the two sessions, so 18 participants went on to receive the second treatment. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — changes in brain activity measured by a brain scan (MRI) before and after stimulation — the exhalatory-gated group showed a positive average difference in brain signal readings (around +0.28 to +0.60 across measured brain regions), while the inhalatory-gated group showed small negative average differences (around -0.05 to -0.24), meaning brain activity in those regions appeared to go up in one group and slightly down in the other after stimulation. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that scores on a depression symptom questionnaire (the Beck Depression Inventory, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms) changed by an average of -8.21 points in the exhalatory group and -3.58 points in the inhalatory group — both representing reductions from their starting scores. For heart rate variability (a measure of how the heart responds to the nervous system), the exhalatory group showed a reported percent change of +28.1%, while the inhalatory group showed almost no change at -0.31%. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03707158 · results posted 27 March 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 305 children and young people with anxiety, along with their caregivers (parents or guardians). The children were split into two groups: 156 received a guided online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) program with minimal therapist involvement, while 149 received CBT led by a therapist, either in person, by video call, or a mix of both. The trial tracked participants at four points in time — before treatment started, during treatment, after treatment finished, and at a follow-up check-in. By the follow-up stage, 80 participants remained in the online group and 94 in the therapist-led group. The main things being measured were anxiety levels (rated by both the young person and their caregiver) and how much the anxiety was getting in the way of everyday life. Caregiver satisfaction with the program was also recorded. The reported data shows that both groups started with similar anxiety scores. Using a standardised scoring system where 60 or above is considered a clinically significant level of anxiety, caregivers in the online group reported their child's anxiety scores went from 65.7 at the start down to 56.2 by follow-up; caregivers in the therapist-led group reported scores going from 66.0 down to 55.9. The young people's own reports followed a similar pattern, dropping from around 61 in both groups at the start to around 54 in both groups by follow-up. Scores measuring how much anxiety interfered with daily life (on a scale of 0–64 for caregivers and 0–36 for young people) also showed reductions across both groups over time, with both groups reporting similar numbers at each stage. The reported data also shows that caregiver satisfaction with the program, measured after treatment on a scale of 0–3, was 2.2 for the online group and 2.7 for the therapist-led group. When satisfaction was looked at differently — counting the percentage of caregivers who scored below 2 (labelled "dissatisfied") — 23.9% of caregivers in the online group fell into that category, compared with 6.8% in the therapist-led group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04891224 · results posted 24 March 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 179 people in total — 90 in a "pre-implementation" group (patients seen before a digital tool called the Pathway Platform was introduced) and 89 in a "Pathway Participants" group (patients seen after it was introduced in a primary care setting). The trial was measuring whether introducing the Pathway Platform changed how consistently doctors tracked patients' depression symptoms over time, using a standard questionnaire called the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Researchers also looked at several other things recorded in patients' medical files, such as medication changes, referrals to mental health services, and hospital or emergency department visits. The reported data shows that for the main thing being measured — how many patients had at least two PHQ questionnaire scores recorded in their file over six months — 35 out of 90 people in the pre-implementation group had this documented, compared with 49 out of 89 in the Pathway Participants group. For the additional measures: medication adjustments linked to depression care were recorded for 38 people in the pre-implementation group and 40 in the Pathway group; referrals to behavioural (mental) health services were recorded for 21 people in the pre-implementation group and 8 in the Pathway group; 19 people in the pre-implementation group and 23 in the Pathway group were hospitalised at some point during the study; and follow-up after an emergency department visit for a mental health reason was recorded for 3 people in the pre-implementation group and 0 in the Pathway group. The reported data shows no numbers were submitted for the shared decision-making measure, so those results were not reported. It is worth noting that these figures are raw counts of participants — the trial data as submitted does not include any further analysis of what those differences between the two groups might or might not mean. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05551195 · results posted 24 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at two groups of people receiving treatment for postpartum (after-birth) depression. One group used an intervention called WB001 alongside their usual care, and the other group received an educational program called ED001 alongside their usual care. In total, only 7 people took part — 1 person in the WB001 group and 6 people in the ED001 group — and all 7 completed the study. The trial measured changes in depression, anxiety, mother-to-baby bonding, and overall illness severity using several standard questionnaires. The reported data shows the following changes in scores from the start to the end of the study (a negative number means scores went down, which on most of these scales indicates fewer symptoms being reported). For the primary measure of depression (HAM-D, scored 0–22), the WB001 group showed a change of 0 points, while the ED001 group showed a change of −5.4 points. For the postpartum depression questionnaire (EPDS, scored 0–30), the changes were 0 and −6.83 respectively. For another depression measure (PHQ-9, scored 0–27), the changes were −3 and −8.17. For anxiety (GAD-7, scored 0–21), the changes were +1 and −6.33. For mother-to-baby bonding (MIBS, scored 0–24, where *lower* scores indicate better bonding), the changes were −2 and +0.17. For overall illness severity rated by a clinician (CGI-S, scored 1–7), the changes were 0 and −1.50. It is important to note that with only 7 participants in total — just 1 in one group — these numbers come from an extremely small group of people, and the reported data should be interpreted with great caution. No conclusions about what these numbers mean more broadly can be drawn from a study of this size. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03498651 · results posted 19 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,748 participants across several groups. The study was testing a digital program called CBM-I (Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation), which is a type of online training designed to influence how people interpret ambiguous situations. Participants were divided into groups based on which program they received and whether they were considered at risk of dropping out — some of those at higher drop-out risk were also assigned a support coach. A comparison group received psychoeducation (general information about anxiety) instead. The trial measured whether the programs changed how participants interpreted uncertain situations (their "interpretation bias") and their levels of anxiety symptoms. Of the participants who started, completion numbers varied by group — for example, 140 completed in the low drop-out CBM-I group and 154 completed in the psychoeducation group, while several other groups recorded no completions in the data. The reported data shows scores across six primary outcome measures, taken at multiple time points. For positive interpretation bias (where higher scores mean people lean toward more positive readings of ambiguous situations), scores in the CBM-I groups started around 2.29–2.40 out of 4 at the beginning, and some groups recorded later scores rising to around 2.83–2.92. The psychoeducation group's scores remained closer to 2.33–2.39. For negative interpretation bias (higher scores meaning a tendency toward more threatening interpretations), CBM-I groups started around 2.90–2.96 and some later scores were reported as low as 2.46–2.58, while the psychoeducation group's score remained around 2.87. Similar patterns were reported on two questionnaires measuring interpretation of bodily sensations. For anxiety symptom scores, the reported data shows average item scores generally starting around 2.28–2.34 out of 4 across groups, with some later time-point scores for certain CBM-I groups recorded as low as 1.75, though not all groups had data reported at every time point. It is important to note that the data as submitted does not always clearly label which scores belong to which time point for every group, and some figures were not reported for all groups — where data was absent, this summary has not filled in those gaps. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03378570 · results posted 3 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 105 people in total — 47 in one group (called the "5.5cm Rule Group") and 58 in the other (called the "F3 Group"). Of those, 41 and 53 respectively completed the study. Both groups received a form of brain stimulation treatment for depression, and the trial was comparing two different methods of targeting that stimulation to see whether one approach produced better results than the other. The study measured changes in depression and anxiety symptoms using three standard questionnaires filled out before and after treatment. The reported data shows that, on the self-reported depression questionnaire (PHQ-9), scores decreased by around 38.7% in the 5.5cm Rule Group and 39.1% in the F3 Group. On the clinician-rated depression scale (MADRS), scores decreased by approximately 39.5% and 37.8% respectively. For anxiety (GAD-7), the 5.5cm Rule Group showed a reported decrease of 33.6%, while the F3 Group showed a reported change of 27.5% — though notably this figure appears as a positive number in the data, suggesting it may reflect an increase rather than a decrease; the data as submitted does not clarify this point further. The reported data also shows that roughly 36–43% of participants in both groups showed a large improvement (more than 50% better) on the depression scales, and around 19–22% reached a very low score on those scales by the end of treatment. Response rates on the anxiety measure were around 27% and 30% for the two groups respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05543746 · results posted 28 January 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 10 participants, all of whom received a treatment called brexanolone. The trial was a feasibility study — meaning it was designed to test whether the study itself could be run smoothly — rather than to draw broad conclusions about the treatment. The researchers were checking three practical things: whether brain-activity recordings (called EEGs) could be successfully collected, whether participants could complete the full study from start to finish, and whether anyone dropped out because of side effects or because taking part was too demanding. The reported data shows that all 10 participants completed the entire study, including the follow-up phase, and none withdrew due to side effects or the burden of participation. Each participant was scheduled for five EEG recordings across the study, giving a possible total of 50 recordings. The reported data shows that 49 out of those 50 scheduled EEG recordings were successfully analysed. No other outcome numbers — such as measures of symptoms or wellbeing — were included in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04739956 · results posted 15 January 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 150 people in total — 74 in one group and 76 in another. The study looked at patients who had been given a diagnosis of "pregnancy of unknown location" (meaning early in pregnancy it was not yet clear where the pregnancy was developing). The trial was measuring whether sharing the result of a bedside blood test (called a Point of Care, or POC, test) with patients changed their levels of anxiety and depression compared to patients who were not shown that result. Psychological wellbeing was measured using a standard questionnaire called the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, where scores can range from 0 to 21, and a score of 11 or above suggests moderate to severe anxiety or depression. The reported data shows that scores were measured at three points in time: when the pregnancy of unknown location was first identified, 48 hours later, and after a final diagnosis was made. For anxiety, the group whose test result was not shared scored 10 on average at the first time point, and the group whose result was shared also scored 10. At 48 hours, both groups scored 5 on average. For depression, the group whose result was not shared scored 10 on average at the first time point, and the group whose result was shared scored 9. At 48 hours, the not-shared group scored 6 and the shared group scored 5. All of these average scores were below the 11-point threshold noted in the study description. Data for the final time point (after final diagnosis) does not appear to have been separately reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01331330 · results posted 14 November 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved nine people in total — five in a "High Frequency" group and four in a "Low Frequency" group. The trial was comparing two different frequencies of a treatment and measuring changes in depression and anxiety symptoms, as well as overall day-to-day functioning, using several standard rating scales. Not everyone completed the trial: three people from the High Frequency group and three from the Low Frequency group finished, while two and one participant respectively did not complete it. The reported data shows changes in depression scores measured by multiple scales across what appear to be different time points. On the main depression scale used (MADRS, where a lower score means less severe depression), the High Frequency group showed percentage reductions ranging from around 8% down to nearly 43% from their starting scores, while the Low Frequency group showed reductions ranging from around 7% to about 23%. On a second depression scale (HDRS), the reported percentage reductions ranged from about 3% to nearly 47% for the High Frequency group, and from about 13% to 28% for the Low Frequency group. For the "responder rate" — meaning the number of people whose MADRS score dropped by 40% or more — the reported data shows that at one time point three participants in the High Frequency group met this threshold, compared to none in the Low Frequency group; at another time point, two from the High Frequency group and one from the Low Frequency group met it. On the anxiety scale, general functioning scale, and a self-reported depression questionnaire, the reported data also shows various percentage changes across both groups and time points, though the figures varied considerably and one anxiety measure in the Low Frequency group showed an increase of around 25% at one time point rather than a decrease. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with fewer than ten participants, and the results data as submitted does not clearly label which time points each set of numbers corresponds to, so the figures above reflect the numbers as reported without further interpretation. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03668223 · results posted 24 October 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03668223) looked at a programme called Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM) compared with usual care, in young people with cancer. A total of 195 participants started the trial — 99 in the PRISM group and 96 in the usual care group. By the end of the study, 69 people in the PRISM group and 76 in the usual care group had completed it, meaning 30 and 20 people respectively did not finish. The trial measured cancer-related quality of life as its main focus, and also looked at anxiety and depression, sense of hope, and personal resilience as secondary areas of interest. The reported data shows that on the main measure — a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire scored from 0 to 100, where higher means better — the PRISM group scored 66.89 and the usual care group scored 68.41. For the secondary measures: on the anxiety and depression scale (scored 0–42, where higher means more anxiety/depression), the PRISM group scored 8.27 and the usual care group scored 9.94. On the hope scale (scored 0–64, where higher means more hopeful thinking), the PRISM group scored 48.06 compared with 46.89 for usual care. On the resilience scale (scored 0–40, where higher means greater perceived resilience), the PRISM group scored 28.05 and the usual care group scored 27.45. No information about whether these differences were considered statistically meaningful (i.e. unlikely to be due to chance) was included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04861597 · results posted 19 September 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 30 people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — a condition that includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Eighteen participants were assigned to an internet-based talking therapy program (called iCBT, which involves structured psychological exercises done online), and 12 were assigned to a digital mood-tracking tool used as a comparison group. Of those who started, 12 people in the iCBT group and 9 in the mood-tracking group completed the study. The trial was primarily measuring psychological distress — that is, feelings of anxiety and depression — using a standardised questionnaire that converts answers into a score centred around 50 in the general population, where higher numbers mean greater distress. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, the iCBT group had an average psychological distress score of 60.8, while the mood-tracking group had an average score of 59.4 — both above the general population average of 50. For Crohn's disease activity (a measure based on symptoms like stomach pain, loose stools, and general wellbeing), the reported average scores were 118 for the iCBT group and 134 for the mood-tracking group, where higher scores indicate more active disease. For ulcerative colitis activity, average scores were 6 for the iCBT group and 7 for the mood-tracking group, out of a possible 19. The reported average perceived stress scores (again centred at 50 in the general population) were 58 for the iCBT group and 55 for the mood-tracking group. The data for the health-related quality-of-life outcome was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04395183 · results posted 23 July 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 43 participants in total, split across four groups. Each group received a different combination of two supplements — creatine and/or 5-HTP (a naturally occurring compound) — or dummy pills with no active ingredient (placebo). The trial was measuring symptoms of depression using two standard questionnaires: the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (a 52-point scale) and the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (a 60-point scale). On both scales, higher scores indicate more severe depression. The trial tracked how many people in each group had their score drop by at least half from where they started — this is called a "response." The reported data shows that on the primary measure (the Hamilton scale), only one participant across all four groups met the threshold of a 50% or greater reduction in their score — and that one person was in the group receiving both creatine and 5-HTP together. No responders were recorded in the other three groups. On the secondary measure (the Montgomery Åsberg scale), the reported data shows two responders each in the creatine-only group, the creatine-plus-5-HTP group, and the double-placebo group, and no responders in the 5-HTP-only group. The numbers completing the study ranged from 9 to 10 participants per group, with a small number not completing the trial in three of the four groups. It is worth noting that these are very small numbers across all groups, and the data as submitted does not include any further statistical analysis or comparison between groups. The reported data shows only raw counts of how many people met the response threshold in each group — no additional figures were reported for the other outcome timepoints or analyses. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05084924 · results posted 25 June 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 35 people in total, split across three groups: 11 received "Delta-beta tACS" (a type of gentle electrical brain stimulation), 12 received "Theta-gamma tACS" (a different pattern of the same type of stimulation), and 12 received "Active-sham tACS" (a comparison condition designed to mimic the experience of stimulation without the same intended effect). All 35 participants completed the trial. The study was measuring whether different patterns of brain stimulation changed how often people chose to take on a harder physical task in exchange for a greater financial reward — a way of looking at effort-related motivation and goal-directed behaviour. It also measured changes in the way different brain signals coordinated with each other during the tasks. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — the change in how often participants chose the harder task — all three groups showed a small decline compared to their starting point. The Delta-beta tACS group changed by −0.30 percentage points, the Theta-gamma tACS group by −0.22 percentage points, and the Active-sham group by −0.09 percentage points. For the secondary outcome — a measure of how strongly low-frequency brain signals in the front of the brain were linked to high-frequency signals at the back (described using a "z-score," a unit that compares a result against a baseline of no connection) — the Delta-beta tACS group showed a change of +0.95, the Theta-gamma tACS group showed −0.97, and the Active-sham group showed +0.13. The researchers noted that a z-score above 1.6 would indicate a meaningful level of signal coupling; none of the groups reached that threshold on average. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03464630 · results posted 20 June 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03464630) enrolled 184 mothers with young babies in each of two groups — a total of 368 participants. One group used a program called "Mom & Baby Net" and the other used a program called "Depression & Developmental Awareness System." The trial measured two broad things: mothers' depression symptoms (using a standard questionnaire called the PHQ-9, scored 0–27 where higher means more symptoms), and the quality of how mothers and their babies interacted during play and book-reading sessions (using two observation tools, the Landry and IPCI rating scales). Not everyone completed the full study — 98 mothers in the Mom & Baby Net group and 118 in the other group finished all the way through. The reported data shows that at the start of the study, both groups had similar average depression scores (11.94 for Mom & Baby Net and 10.31 for the other group, both in a range considered moderate). By the end, both groups' average scores had dropped considerably (5.61 and 5.33 respectively). For the mother–baby interaction measures, the reported data shows that on the Landry "mother positive behaviour" scale (4–20, higher is better), Mom & Baby Net started at 12.43 and ended at 15.54, while the other group started at 13.16 and ended at 13.04. On "mother negative behaviour" (0–1, higher is worse), Mom & Baby Net went from 0.27 to 0.21, while the other group went from 0.25 to 0.38. For child positive/engagement behaviour (2–10, higher is better), Mom & Baby Net went from 5.21 to 6.35, and the other group from 4.97 to 5.92. The IPCI book-reading observations also recorded changes in how often mothers used encouraging responses with their babies, with both groups showing shifts across the study period, as detailed in the full reported data. It is worth noting that the data submitted does not include information about whether any of these differences between or within groups were considered statistically meaningful (that is, whether they were large enough to be unlikely due to chance), so those figures were not reported and cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05462652 · results posted 12 June 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05462652) enrolled 223 people in total — 111 in the Active Intervention group and 112 in the Usual Care group. The trial was measuring symptoms of depression, using a questionnaire called the PHQ-8, where people rate how often they experience eight common depression-related feelings. Scores on this tool range from 0 to 24, with higher numbers meaning more severe symptoms. By the end of the study, 96 people in the Active Intervention group and 98 in the Usual Care group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, at the end of the intervention period, the Active Intervention group had an average depression symptom score of 8.39, compared with 11.03 in the Usual Care group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 31.7% of people in the Active Intervention group had their PHQ-8 score cut by at least half from where it started (described as an "intervention response"), compared with 11.6% in the Usual Care group. When looking at "remission" — defined in this trial as scoring below 5 on the PHQ-8 at the end of the study — 24.9% of the Active Intervention group met this threshold, versus 9.4% in the Usual Care group. Finally, a drop of 5 or more points from their starting score (described as a "clinically-meaningful reduction") was recorded for 40.5% of people in the Active Intervention group, compared with 15.8% in the Usual Care group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03438656 · results posted 2 May 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03438656) involved 32 participants who were assigned to a single group called the "Behavioural Activation Arm." The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms and feelings of loss of pleasure or interest (known as anhedonia) in the participants. Of the 32 people who started the trial, 30 completed it and 2 did not. The reported data shows two main outcomes. The first was depression symptoms, measured using a self-report questionnaire called the PHQ-9, which runs from 0 to 27 — where a higher number means more severe depression symptoms. The reported average score for participants was 9.63 out of 27. The second main outcome was a measure of anhedonia and engagement in daily activities, using a scale called the BADS, which runs from 0 to 150 — where a higher number represents less activity and engagement, and is considered a worse result. The reported average score on this measure was 61.80 out of 150. It is worth noting that several other things were also planned to be measured — including anxiety, behavioural problems, hopelessness, and suicidal thoughts — but no figures for those outcomes were included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00617162 · results posted 8 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a treatment called Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) — a procedure involving a surgically implanted device that delivers electrical signals to specific areas of the brain — for people with depression. A total of 90 people took part: 60 in the active DBS group and 30 in a control group (who received a comparison condition). Of those, 53 and 27 respectively completed the study. The main thing being measured was depression severity, using a standard questionnaire called the MADRS, where a score of 0 means no symptoms and 60 means the most severe symptoms possible. The reported data shows that at the start of the study, the active DBS group had an average MADRS depression score of 33.8, and the control group averaged 37.3. When looking at the primary measure — the average score across months 4, 5, and 6 — the active group's score was reported as 27.5 and the control group's as 29.4. At the one-year mark (a secondary measure), the reported scores were 23.2 for the active group and 26.7 for the control group. The reported data also shows scores from several other questionnaires. On the GAF scale (which measures how much symptoms affect day-to-day life, out of 100), both groups started around 41–42 and moved to around 54 at one year. On a quality-of-life questionnaire (scored out of 80), both groups showed a modest increase from baseline to one year. Regarding recorded adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences tracked during the study), 35 participants in the active group and 12 in the control group had at least one adverse event of any kind reported; more specific breakdowns by event type were also reported in the data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04014959 · results posted 2 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04014959) enrolled 41 participants in total, with 37 completing all stages of the study. The trial was investigating a brain stimulation technique called TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) — a non-invasive method that uses magnetic pulses to stimulate specific areas of the brain. Researchers used brain scans (fMRI) to measure activity in a particular brain region linked to mood, and also asked participants to fill in a questionnaire about their depression, anxiety, and stress levels, before and after a three-day TMS treatment program. The reported data shows that the primary measurement — activity in a mood-related brain region called the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, measured as a percentage change in brain scan signal — was recorded at four different points across two scanning sessions. The four reported values were −0.27%, −0.19%, −0.26%, and −0.42% signal change respectively (negative numbers indicate a reduction in activity in this region, and the researchers noted that a greater negative change was associated with more clinical improvement in their framework). For the questionnaire measuring depression, anxiety, and stress (scored from 0 to 63, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms), the reported data shows an average score of 26.78 before the intervention and 17.61 after it. An additional brain scan measure showed values of −0.19% before and −0.42% after the three-day program. It is important to note that this trial had a relatively small number of participants and did not appear to include a comparison group, which limits how much can be concluded from these numbers alone. The reported data shows changes in measurements over the course of the study, but what those changes mean clinically is a matter for medical professionals to interpret. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03152409 · results posted 31 January 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03152409) looked at whether adding aspirin to a standard treatment made a difference in depression symptoms compared to adding a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). A total of 11 people began the study — 6 in the aspirin group and 5 in the placebo group. Of those, only 3 people in each group completed the trial, meaning 3 in the aspirin group and 2 in the placebo group did not finish. The main thing being measured was change in depression symptoms using something called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale — a scoring tool where a lower score suggests fewer symptoms. The reported data shows that, on average, people in the aspirin group saw their score go down by about 9.75 points, while people in the placebo group saw their score go down by about 11.67 points. The trial also planned to look at changes in inflammatory markers (substances in the blood linked to inflammation) and how those related to treatment response, but no numbers for those secondary measures were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that very few people completed this trial — just 3 in each group — which means the numbers above are based on a very small sample. The reported data shows what was observed in this small group only, and no broader conclusions should be drawn from it. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05263037 · results posted 20 December 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,093 adults with chronic pain across four groups. Participants were assigned to one of two virtual reality (VR) programs — either a 56-day skills-based VR program alone, or that same program followed by an additional 56-day period of on-demand access — or to one of two "sham" (fake/placebo-style) VR control groups following the same structure. The trial's main goal was to measure self-reported pain intensity using a standard questionnaire called the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where scores run from 0 to 10 and a higher number means greater pain. The vast majority of participants — over 1,060 out of 1,093 — completed the study. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study period, the average BPI pain intensity score was 4.51 for the 56-day skills-based VR group, and 4.83 for the skills-based VR group that then had the extended on-demand period. In comparison, the sham VR control group scored 5.25, and the sham VR group with the extended on-demand period scored 5.17. All scores fell in the mid-range of the 0–10 scale. The trial also intended to measure several secondary outcomes — including disability, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety — however, the reported data shows that no numerical results for these secondary measures were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03237286 · results posted 1 November 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 154 people with depression across three groups: 53 received ketamine combined with cognitive training, 50 received ketamine combined with a sham (inactive) version of the training, and 51 received a saline (saltwater) infusion combined with cognitive training. The trial was measuring several things at once — depression symptoms (rated both by a clinician and by participants themselves), how flexibly people could think and switch between tasks, how people unconsciously associated themselves with positive or negative qualities, and brain connectivity patterns measured by MRI scans. The reported data shows the following scores at the end of the study. For clinician-rated depression (on a scale of 0–60, where higher means more severe), the ketamine + cognitive training group scored 19.72, the ketamine + sham training group scored 22.87, and the saline + cognitive training group scored 23.51. For self-reported depression (on a scale of 0–27, higher is worse), the scores were 10.77, 12.03, and 10.42 respectively. On the cognitive flexibility test (0–100, higher is better), scores were 54.51, 49.34, and 53.25. For the unconscious self-association measure (where a negative number means associating oneself more with positive qualities), the ketamine + cognitive training group returned −0.16, while the other two groups returned 0.15 and 0.03. Brain connectivity scores (measured as beta weights during tasks and at rest) were broadly similar across all three groups, ranging from approximately 0.50 to 0.59. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05229406 · results posted 1 August 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 92 participants in total, split equally into two groups of 46 — one group was asked to use a mindfulness and wellbeing smartphone app called the Healthy Minds Program (HMP) for 5 minutes a day, and the other for 15 minutes a day. The trial was primarily measuring practical, "feasibility" questions — that is, whether the study design itself was workable — such as how many people completed the study, how consistently participants used the app as instructed, and how easy participants found the app to use. The reported data shows that nearly all participants finished the study: 45 out of 46 in the 5-minute group and 44 out of 46 in the 15-minute group. When it came to sticking to their assigned daily usage at least half of the time, 22 out of 46 participants in the 5-minute group and 16 out of 46 in the 15-minute group met that mark. A separate but related measure — completing the app's practice activities on at least half of days — was met by 32 out of 46 in the 5-minute group and 26 out of 46 in the 15-minute group. Participants also completed short regular check-in surveys (called ecological momentary assessments) at a rate of about 83% in the 5-minute group and about 79% in the 15-minute group. App usability was rated using a standardised questionnaire scored from 0 to 100 (where higher means easier to use); the 5-minute group averaged 84.56 and the 15-minute group averaged 83.66. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05085392 · results posted 29 June 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was measuring whether a yoga program had any effect on a range of mental and physical health markers in the participants, including stress hormone levels in saliva, symptoms of depression and anxiety, heart rhythm patterns, personal resilience, and work-related wellbeing (such as job satisfaction, burnout, and exposure to others' trauma). The reported data shows the following before and after measurements for the yoga group. For the saliva stress hormone (cortisol), levels were reported as 0.07 ug/dl at the start and 0.11 ug/dl at a later point. For the depression questionnaire (scored 0–27, where lower is better), scores went from 8.75 to 4.85. For the anxiety questionnaire (scored 0–21, where lower is better), scores went from 13.9 to 4.85. For the heart rhythm measure, both the before and after readings were reported as 1.45 beats per minute, showing no change. For the resilience scale (scored 0–100, where higher is better), scores went from 28.35 to 38.5. For the work wellbeing questionnaire, the reported data shows compassion satisfaction scores of 34.4 before and 23.2 after; burnout scores of 37.95 before and 39.2 after; and secondary trauma scores of 23.9 before and 22.55 after. There was no separate comparison group, so all figures reflect the one yoga group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04226742 · results posted 26 May 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04226742) involved two groups of participants — a Treatment group and a Control group. A total of 56 people started in the Treatment group and 51 in the Control group. By the end of the study, 35 people in each group had completed it. The trial was measuring symptoms of depression and anxiety at 16 weeks as its main goals, along with several other things including how often participants used coping skills, their confidence in managing difficulties, their sense of being supported and accountable, and their ability to take part in social activities. The reported data shows that at 16 weeks, both groups scored the same on the depression scale — 15.7 out of a possible range of 7 to 28, where lower numbers mean fewer reported symptoms. For anxiety (also scored from 7 to 28, with lower being fewer symptoms), the Treatment group scored 12.4 and the Control group scored 11.0. For the secondary measures: on the coping skills scale (0 to 4, higher meaning more frequent use), the Treatment group scored 2.03 and the Control group scored 1.78. On the self-confidence in coping scale (0 to 260, higher meaning more confidence), scores were 134.0 for the Treatment group and 124.0 for the Control group. On the supportive accountability scale (7 to 91, higher meaning greater accountability), both groups scored similarly at 75.1 and 74.7. Finally, on the social functioning scale (where 50 is the average in the general population), both groups scored well above average — 78.4 for the Treatment group and 79.3 for the Control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02161211 · results posted 15 February 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 279 people across three groups: a "De-coupling" group (92 people), an "Anxiety Reduction" group (94 people), and a "Combined" group (93 people). The trial was testing three different psychological approaches for people dealing with alcohol use, and it tracked what happened over four months after treatment. Not everyone finished the study — 59, 62, and 63 people completed the trial in each group respectively, meaning roughly a third of participants in each group did not complete it. The reported data shows the following numbers at the four-month follow-up point. For how many people returned to drinking, the De-coupling group had 30 out of 92 participants recorded as having relapsed, compared with 43 out of 94 in the Anxiety Reduction group and 35 out of 93 in the Combined group. When looking at the average number of days on which drinking occurred over the four months, the reported figures were 8.44 days for the De-coupling group, 13.04 days for the Anxiety Reduction group, and 11.34 days for the Combined group. Among those who had returned to drinking, the average number of standard drinks consumed on a drinking day was reported as 17.17, 17.72, and 17.67 for the three groups respectively. On the secondary measures, the number of participants who met the criteria for alcohol dependence (based on a structured clinical interview) was 13, 21, and 16 across the three groups, and the number recorded as returning to what the researchers defined as "hazardous drinking" was 27, 39, and 34. It is worth noting that these figures describe only the participants in this specific trial and reflect what was measured and counted — they do not on their own tell us whether any difference between groups is meaningful or due to chance. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04037085 · results posted 20 December 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04037085) enrolled 8 participants, all of whom completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was looking at how ketamine — a medicine sometimes used during childbirth — moves through the body of a person who has just given birth, and whether it passes into breast milk. The researchers measured several things: how much ketamine the body was exposed to over time, the level of ketamine in the blood at a stable point during dosing, how long it took for the body to clear half of the drug, how widely the drug spread through the body's tissues, and how the levels of ketamine (and a breakdown product called nor-ketamine) in breast milk compared to levels in the blood. The reported data shows the following numbers for the ketamine group. The total drug exposure over time (a measure called AUC, which reflects how much of the drug the body absorbed) was reported as 28.46 micrograms per minute per millilitre. The steady-state blood level — meaning the concentration in the blood once it had levelled out during the infusion — was reported as 35.58 nanograms per millilitre. The time for the drug level to fall by half after dosing ended was reported as 364 minutes (just over six hours). The volume of distribution — a figure that reflects how broadly the drug spread through the body rather than staying in the bloodstream — was reported as 1,076 litres. Regarding breast milk, the reported milk-to-plasma ratio for ketamine was 3.15, meaning the concentration measured in breast milk was about three times higher than in the blood at the same point in time. For nor-ketamine (the main breakdown product of ketamine), the reported milk-to-plasma ratio was 1.5, meaning its breast milk concentration was about one and a half times the blood concentration. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02418195 · results posted 5 July 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 247 people across four groups: 62 people with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had recently attempted suicide, 63 people with MDD who had thoughts of suicide but had not made an attempt, 61 people with MDD who had no thoughts of suicide, and 61 healthy volunteers used as a comparison group. All participants who started the study completed it. The trial was not testing a treatment — rather, it was an observational study measuring and comparing scores on several standardised questionnaires across these groups, looking at things like suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and psychotic symptoms. The reported data shows the following scores on the primary measure, the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (a questionnaire scored from 0 to 42, where higher numbers mean more intense suicidal thoughts): the group with a recent suicide attempt scored 9.09 on average; the group with suicidal thoughts but no attempt scored 8.46; and the group with MDD but no suicidal thoughts scored 1.90. For the secondary depression measure (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, scored 0–60), the reported averages were 11.7, 11.56, and 8.14 for those same three groups respectively. On the Beck Depression Inventory (0–63), scores were 18.02, 15.85, and 12.12. On the Beck Anxiety Inventory (0–63), scores were 6.76, 6.59, and 3.31. On the Beck Hopelessness Scale (0–20), scores were 8.25, 8.35, and 7.22. Scores on the brief psychiatric symptom scale (0–24) were very low across all three groups, at 0.02, 0.04, and 0.03. No outcome data was reported for the healthy control group on these measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01111552 · results posted 26 October 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 237 people in its main treatment phase (Phase B), all of whom received a single-blind treatment over eight weeks. Of those 237 participants, 120 completed that phase. The trial was studying people with depression, and it was measuring changes in depression severity and day-to-day functioning across several phases. In the final phase (Phase C, weeks 9 to 14), 66 participants who had not fully responded to the initial treatment were split into three groups: one group received escitalopram alone (22 people), one received aripiprazole alone (21 people), and one received both medicines together (23 people). A separate group of 54 people who had responded well earlier continued in a maintenance phase. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured in Phase C was change in scores on a depression rating scale called the MADRS, which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 60 (most severe symptoms). A lower score after treatment means fewer reported symptoms. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the escitalopram-alone group's average score fell by 8.0 points, the aripiprazole-alone group's fell by 9.6 points, and the combination group's fell by 9.2 points — all measured from the end of week 8 to the end of week 14. For a separate clinician-rated scale of overall illness change (scored 1 to 7, where lower means more improved), all three groups reported average scores of around 2.3 to 2.4, which sits between "much improved" and "minimally improved" on that scale. The reported data also shows results for a scale measuring how depression affected participants' work, social life, and home responsibilities (scored 0 to 30, where lower means less impact). The escitalopram-alone group's average score on this scale fell by 0.9 points, the aripiprazole-alone group's fell by 1.4 points, and the combination group's fell by 1.2 points over the same period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04449341 · results posted 11 June 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether using a virtual reality (VR) headset during a blood draw (venipuncture) made any difference to how much pain and anxiety people reported feeling during the procedure. A total of 59 people took part — 31 in the VR group and 28 in the standard care group (no VR). Of those, 30 in the VR group and all 28 in the standard care group completed the study. The reported data shows that pain was measured using a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 means no pain at all and 100 means the worst pain imaginable. The VR group reported an average pain score of 6.50, while the group without VR reported an average score of 5.00. For anxiety, the same type of 0-to-100 scale was used, where 0 means no anxiety and 100 means maximum anxiety. The reported data shows the VR group scored an average of 5.00 for anxiety, while the group without VR scored an average of 6.50. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03756129 · results posted 19 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03756129) looked at an experimental drug called MIJ821 in people with treatment-resistant depression — that is, depression that had not responded to previous treatments. A total of 70 people took part across six groups: four groups received different doses and schedules of MIJ821, one group received ketamine (another drug used in this setting), and one group received a placebo (an inactive substance). The trial measured changes in depression severity using a clinician-rated questionnaire called the MADRS, where a score of 0 means no depression symptoms and 60 means the most severe possible symptoms. A larger drop in score from the starting point means fewer reported symptoms. The reported data shows that the key measurement — the change in MADRS score 24 hours after a single dose — was a drop of about 15.5 points for the lower-dose MIJ821 group, about 13.0 points for the higher-dose MIJ821 group, about 12.9 points for the ketamine group, and about 7.3 points for the placebo group. At 48 hours, the reported drops were roughly 14.9, 15.3, 18.9, and 7.9 points for those same groups respectively. At six weeks, all active treatment groups showed drops in MADRS scores ranging from about 10.7 to 14.1 points, compared with about 7.6 points in the placebo group. Secondary measures looking at mania symptoms (YMRS scale) and a separate depression severity scale (BRMS) were also reported, with all groups showing small reductions in mania scores. Blood concentration levels of MIJ821 were also measured — the data was reported as approximately 99.5 ng/mL for the lower dose and 149 ng/mL for the higher dose, though what these figures mean clinically is not described in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03446846 · results posted 17 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03446846) enrolled 360 adults across three groups: 90 people received the higher dose of MIN-117 (5.0 mg), 92 received the lower dose (2.5 mg), and 178 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring changes in depression and anxiety symptoms over time, using four standard rating scales completed by clinicians. By the end of the study, 83, 87, and 162 participants had completed the trial in each group respectively. The reported data shows that across all four outcome measures, the scores were virtually identical between the two MIN-117 dose groups and the placebo group. On the primary measure — the MADRS depression scale, which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 60 (most severe) — all three groups showed an average decrease of 12 points from their starting score. On the anxiety scale (HAM-A, scored 0–56), the higher-dose MIN-117 group dropped by 12 points on average, while both the lower-dose and placebo groups dropped by 11 points. On the overall illness severity scale (CGI-S, scored 1–7), all three groups showed an average decrease of 1 point. On the improvement scale (CGI-I, scored 1–7, where lower numbers mean more improvement), all three groups scored an average of 3, which on that scale corresponds to "minimally improved." The reported data shows that the numbers recorded for participants in the MIN-117 groups and the placebo group were the same or nearly the same across all four measures assessed. No figures were reported separately for individual participants, only these group averages. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04011592 · results posted 14 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04011592) was a crossover study — meaning participants were planned to receive both doses of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg and then 0.2 mg/kg, or vice versa) at different times, so results are reported by dose rather than by person. The trial was measuring changes in depressed mood, postnatal depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and the number of side effects (called adverse events) in people with postnatal depression. However, the reported data shows that only one participant started and completed the study, and no participants were enrolled in the second group. This means the trial was very small — far smaller than originally planned — and the numbers below come from that single participant's experience across both doses. The reported data shows the following changes in questionnaire scores 24 hours after each ketamine dose (a higher number here means a bigger drop in score from the starting point, which in these scales generally means fewer symptoms were reported at that time). On the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (scored 0–53, where higher is more severe), the reported change was 9 points after the 0.5 mg/kg dose and 3 points after the 0.2 mg/kg dose. On the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (scored 0–30), the reported change was 8 points after the higher dose and 2 points after the lower dose. On the anxiety scale (scored 0–21), the reported change was 5 points after the higher dose and 0 points after the lower dose. For the depression questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the suicidal thoughts scale (C-SSRS), no measurement data was reported. Regarding adverse events (unexpected health events during the trial), one event was recorded for the higher dose and one for the lower dose in one reporting category, and one event for the higher dose and none for the lower dose in a second category — though no further detail about what these events were is included in the submitted data. It is important to note that with only one participant, these numbers cannot be used to draw any broad conclusions about ketamine as a treatment. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02431806 · results posted 7 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 552 children and adolescents across four groups to compare two doses of a medication called levomilnacipran (40 mg/day and 80 mg/day) against a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) and an existing antidepressant called fluoxetine (20 mg/day). The trial was measuring changes in depression symptom scores over the treatment period. Of the 552 who started, around 448 completed the main treatment phase. The primary thing being measured was a depression rating scale called the CDRS-R, which runs from 17 (no symptoms) to 113 (most severe). The reported data shows that all four groups had lower scores at the end of the treatment period compared to where they started — meaning scores moved in a direction that suggests fewer or less severe symptoms across the board. The reported average score reductions were: placebo –22.90 points, levomilnacipran 40 mg –23.28 points, levomilnacipran 80 mg –22.64 points, and fluoxetine –24.37 points. The reported data also shows results for a secondary measure — the CGI-S, a 1-to-7 clinician-rated scale of illness severity. Again, all four groups showed reductions from their starting scores: placebo –1.54, levomilnacipran 40 mg –1.52, levomilnacipran 80 mg –1.52, and fluoxetine –1.68. No other outcome data was included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03415022 · results posted 11 August 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03415022) involved 41 people in total — 21 assigned to a 4-week computer-based treatment program and 20 assigned to an 8-week version of the same program. Of these, 16 and 15 participants respectively completed the study, with 5 people in each group not finishing. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants spent looking at threatening facial expressions (tracked by eye-movement technology) during treatment sessions, and how their social anxiety scores changed over time using a clinician-rated questionnaire called the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), which runs from 0 to 144, where higher scores mean greater social anxiety. The reported data shows that, from the start of the study to week 8, the 4-week group spent an average of 20.7% of their gaze time on threatening faces, while the 8-week group spent 27.1%. For the LSAS social anxiety score, the reported change was 23.68 points in the 4-week group and 22.38 points in the 8-week group — though the data does not specify whether these changes represent increases or decreases from baseline. On a self-rated social anxiety questionnaire (the SPIN, scored 0–68), the reported change was 17.7 points for the 4-week group and 10.1 points for the 8-week group. For quality of life (scored 16–80), the reported changes were −8.8 and −4.8 respectively. Two further questionnaires measuring reduced pleasure in social situations showed small changes across both groups, with figures ranging from −1.0 to 2.2 points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02163811 · results posted 5 August 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 147 participants in total — 71 in a group called VETPALS and 76 in a group called the Individual Education Support Program. By the end of the study, 35 people in the VETPALS group and 60 in the Individual Education Support Program group had completed the trial. The trial was measuring two main things: physical functioning (how well people could move and use their bodies, using a questionnaire called the SMFA) and depression symptoms (using a questionnaire called the PHQ-9). It also looked at quality of life, satisfaction with health, self-confidence in managing limb loss, and how actively engaged participants were in looking after themselves. The reported data shows that on the physical functioning scale — where 0 means the best possible functioning and 100 means the worst — the VETPALS group scored 32.34 and the Individual Education Support Program group scored 30.19 at the end of the study. On the depression scale — where 0 means no depression symptoms and 27 means the most severe — the VETPALS group scored 5.14 and the Individual Education Support Program group scored 5.87. These are the scores recorded at the time of measurement; the data as submitted does not include starting scores for comparison. The reported data shows that for overall quality of life (scored 1 to 5, with 5 being best), VETPALS participants scored 3.86 and the other group scored 3.77. For satisfaction with health (also 1 to 5), the scores were 3.69 and 3.32 respectively. On self-confidence in managing limb loss (0 to 10), both groups scored similarly — 7.96 for VETPALS and 7.89 for the other group. For active engagement in self-care (1 to 5), VETPALS scored 3.17 and the other group scored 3.08. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02901080 · results posted 25 June 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 161 people, all of whom had been diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and had previously received a low-intensity psychological therapy through the UK's NHS. All participants used a device called Alpha-Stim AID, which delivers a very mild electrical current to the head (called cranial electrotherapy stimulation). The trial ran for 24 weeks and measured changes in anxiety symptoms, as well as depression symptoms and sleep problems, using standard questionnaires. Of the 161 people who started, 112 completed the trial and 49 did not finish. The reported data shows that, out of the 112 people who completed the trial, 102 participants recorded at least a 5-point drop on the GAD-7 — a standard anxiety questionnaire where a larger drop in score indicates fewer reported symptoms. For depression, measured by a separate questionnaire called the PHQ-9, 80 participants recorded a drop of at least 6 points in their scores. For sleep difficulties, measured by the Athens Insomnia Scale, 48 participants recorded a reduction of at least 50% in their score. These figures simply describe how many people reached those particular score thresholds — they do not tell us what would have happened without the device, as there was no comparison group. The reported data also includes a cost figure of £540 (pounds sterling) per participant, which the trial used as part of a cost-effectiveness calculation. No further breakdown of this cost figure was provided in the submitted results. It is also worth noting that results were only submitted for the single group that used the device, so there is no separate control or comparison group result reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00634283 · results posted 18 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 6 participants, all of whom completed the study with no drop-outs. All participants received Venlafaxine IR (also known as Effexor). The trial was measuring changes in brain activity using a technique called quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) — essentially a detailed recording of electrical signals in the brain. Specifically, it looked at an area at the front of the brain and tracked a measurement called "prefrontal cordance," which combines two different ways of reading brain wave data. Participants were divided into two groups: those who had previously taken antidepressant medication, and those who had not. The reported data shows two sets of measurements. The first looked at changes in brain activity over a one-week period before the medication started (a "placebo lead-in" phase). During this phase, the treatment-experienced group showed a reported change of −0.54 (on a standardised scoring scale), while the treatment-naive group showed a change of −0.09. A negative number in this context, as described in the trial data, represents what the researchers called "habituation" — meaning the brain showing less response over time. The second measurement tracked changes over the full 4-week period of the study. The reported data shows the treatment-experienced group recorded values of −0.54 and −0.09 across two time points, while the treatment-naive group recorded −0.09 and −0.88. No secondary outcome data was reported in the submitted results. It is worth noting that with only 6 participants, this was a very small study, and the results reflect a narrow snapshot of data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02903030 · results posted 5 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a probiotic product called Visbiome in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who also had gastrointestinal (gut) symptoms. It was a crossover trial, meaning participants tried both Visbiome and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) at different times, with a three-week "washout" break in between. A total of 13 children were enrolled across two groups — 8 in one group and 5 in the other — though 3 did not complete the first phase, leaving 10 children who went through the full trial. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a change in a gut-symptom quality-of-life score (called the PedsQL GI Module), where higher numbers mean more improvement. After 8 weeks, the reported average change was 17.97 points during the Visbiome period and 7.98 points during the placebo period. For a secondary measure asking parents to rate their top concerns on a 9-point scale (where a lower number means improvement from their starting point), the reported average change was −2.10 during Visbiome and −0.60 during placebo. On a parent anxiety checklist scored 0–75 (lower is better), the reported changes were −6.20 for Visbiome and −4.10 for placebo. The reported data also shows changes across several behaviour rating scales, a social responsiveness scale, and a children's sleep questionnaire, with scores shifting by small amounts in both the Visbiome and placebo periods across all of these measures. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial of only 10 children who completed all phases, so the reported numbers come from a limited group. No data was reported for some sub-categories of the behaviour checklist in a way that clearly separates each subscale result, and the trial's own reported figures should be considered in that context. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02943564 · results posted 27 December 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 638 people across three groups: 217 received a placebo (an inactive treatment used for comparison), 211 received rapastinel at a dose of 225 mg, and 210 received rapastinel at a dose of 450 mg. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms in people who had not responded well to their current antidepressant medication. The main tool used to measure symptoms was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) — a questionnaire scored from 0 to 60, where higher numbers indicate more severe depression, and a falling score indicates fewer symptoms. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — change in MADRS score by the end of the study — the placebo group's score fell by an average of 4.9 points, the 225 mg rapastinel group's score fell by an average of 4.8 points, and the 450 mg rapastinel group's score fell by an average of 5.4 points. For the secondary outcome, which measured the change in MADRS score at an earlier point during the study, the reported data shows a fall of 4.5 points in the placebo group, 4.6 points in the 225 mg group, and 4.5 points in the 450 mg group. In all cases, the reported changes across the three groups were very close to one another. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03458702 · results posted 25 November 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03458702) involved 56 people in total (28 in each group), though the number who completed all stages was smaller — 40 people finished the final phase. The trial used a "crossover" design, meaning participants experienced both conditions at different times: a 30-minute YogaFit session and a 30-minute period of quiet rest. The study was measuring anxiety levels, heart rate, and several measures of heart rate variability (which refers to the natural variation in time between heartbeats — a marker researchers track in relation to health) before, during, and after each condition, as well as after participants viewed a set of emotionally stimulating images. The reported data shows the following numbers. For self-reported anxiety (measured on a scale of 20–80, where higher means more anxious): before the session, both groups scored similarly (around 33–34); after the YogaFit session the score was reported as 27.43, and after quiet rest it was 29.78; after viewing the emotional images, scores were reported as 33.18 (YogaFit group) and 34.48 (quiet rest group). For heart rate (beats per minute): baseline figures were similar for both groups (around 72–74 beats per minute); during the session, the YogaFit group recorded 101.01 beats per minute compared to 69.35 for the quiet rest group, reflecting that yoga involved physical movement. Heart rates in both groups were reported as broadly similar again afterwards. For the heart rate variability measures (RMSSD, LFNU, and HFNU), both groups started at similar levels, with some variation in the numbers recorded after each condition and after the image-viewing period — however, the reported data does not include the statistical analysis needed to draw conclusions about those differences, and that information was not provided in the submitted results. The reported data also shows that participants rated the physical effort of YogaFit at about 10.83 out of 20 on an exertion scale, compared to 6.05 for quiet rest. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00611923 · results posted 19 November 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 25 participants in total — 12 in the placebo group and 13 in the flutamide group. Of those, 10 and 11 respectively completed the study (2 dropped out from each group). The trial was measuring changes in premenstrual symptoms over two months, comparing a medication called flutamide against a placebo (a dummy treatment). Symptoms were tracked using several rating scales completed by participants and clinicians. The reported data shows the following numbers for the main measure — the Premenstrual Tension Scale (PMTS), which runs from 0 to 40, where a lower score means fewer symptoms. A negative change score means symptoms went down from the starting point. At month 1, the placebo group's score changed by −6.9 and the flutamide group's by −5.5. At month 2, the placebo group changed by −5.5 and the flutamide group by −8.3. For the secondary symptom scale (DRSP, ranging 21–126), the reported changes at month 2 were −22.2 for placebo and −35.6 for flutamide — again, negative numbers indicating a reduction from the starting level. On a clinician-rated global improvement scale (1 = very much improved, 7 = very much worse), scores at month 2 were reported as 3.1 for placebo and 2.2 for flutamide. A side effect burden questionnaire (scored 0–18) reported scores of 2.2 for placebo and 5.1 for flutamide at month 2. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01703039 · results posted 28 August 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether adding riluzole (a medicine already used for a neurological condition) to the antidepressant sertraline had any different effect on depression symptoms compared to adding a placebo (a dummy pill) to sertraline. A total of 21 people started the trial — 9 in the sertraline-plus-riluzole group and 12 in the sertraline-plus-placebo group. By the end of the 8-week study, 6 people in the riluzole group and 7 in the placebo group had completed it. The main thing being measured was change in depression symptom scores using a standard clinician-rated questionnaire called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), where a higher score means more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that, on average, people in the sertraline-plus-riluzole group had their HDRS score decrease by 5.67 points over 8 weeks, while people in the sertraline-plus-placebo group had an average decrease of 13.43 points. Regarding the number of people who showed a strong response to treatment (defined as more than a 50% drop in their HDRS score), the reported data shows 1 person in the riluzole group and 3 in the placebo group met this threshold. No one in the riluzole group and 1 person in the placebo group reached what is called "remission" (a score below 7 on the HDRS, meaning very low symptoms). On the secondary measures — a clinician-rated anxiety scale and an overall illness impression scale — the placebo group also showed larger average reductions in scores compared to the riluzole group. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, and the reported data shows a number of participants did not complete the study in both groups. Because the numbers involved are so small, these figures should be interpreted with caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00200902 · results posted 10 April 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 88 people in total across three groups: 39 people received medication combined with a structured clinical interaction (called ICI), 29 people received a placebo (a dummy pill) combined with ICI, and 20 people received ICI alone. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms using a standard questionnaire called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17), where higher scores mean more severe symptoms. It also looked at how participants' attitudes and expectations about their treatment changed over three weeks. The reported data shows that, when looking at who met the threshold for "response" (defined as a 50% drop in their depression score), 17 out of 39 people in the medication-plus-ICI group, 11 out of 29 in the placebo-plus-ICI group, and 1 out of 20 in the ICI-alone group reached that mark. For "remission" (a score of 7 or below, indicating very low symptom levels), the reported numbers were 9, 9, and 0 people in those same three groups respectively. When looking at the average change in depression scores over the full study, the medication-plus-ICI group's average score dropped by about 10 points, the placebo-plus-ICI group's dropped by about 7.6 points, and the ICI-alone group's dropped by about 1.4 points. The reported data also shows that participants' treatment expectation scores — measured on a scale where a lower number means a worse outlook — averaged 3.55 for the medication group, 3.94 for the placebo group, and 3.17 for the ICI-alone group after three weeks. It is worth noting that not everyone who started the trial completed it: 10 people in the medication group, 3 in the placebo group, and 8 in the ICI-alone group did not finish. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00696137 · results posted 19 December 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 5 participants, all of whom received a treatment called BEMA Fentanyl. Of the 5 who started, 3 completed the study and 2 did not finish. The trial was not designed to measure how well the treatment worked — instead, its stated purpose was to look at long-term safety in this particular group of patients over an extended follow-up period. The reported data shows that the only outcome measure recorded was the number of deaths during the long-term follow-up period. According to the results submitted, zero participants died during this follow-up. No other outcome figures — such as measures of how the treatment performed — were reported, as the trial was not set up to collect that kind of information. Because this was a very small study with only 5 people, the numbers on their own are limited in what they can tell us. It is worth noting that with such a small number of participants, the reported data should be understood in that context. The trial was narrowly focused on one safety-related question, and the results reflect only what was specifically measured and submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01392963 · results posted 26 July 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 30 people in total (11 in one group, 19 in the other), though two people dropped out early, leaving 28 who completed the main part of the study. It was a "crossover" trial — meaning everyone received both Botox and a placebo (an inactive dummy injection) at different points, just in a different order. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms using a standard clinician-rated questionnaire called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21), where higher scores indicate more severe depression and lower scores indicate fewer symptoms. The reported data shows that six weeks after their first injection, the group who received Botox first had an average score change of **−12.7 points** on the depression scale (meaning their scores went down by that amount from their starting point), while the group who received the placebo first had an average score change of only **−0.4 points** over the same period. For the secondary outcome, the reported data shows that the group who started with placebo had a score change of −0.4 points six weeks after their placebo injection, and then a score change of −8.4 points six weeks after they later received the Botox injection. Two participants did not complete the final follow-up at week 24, and no data for that follow-up visit was reported in the results. These numbers reflect how scores on this particular questionnaire shifted from each participant's starting point — they do not tell us about individual experiences, long-term effects, or how results might vary in different people. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02046564 · results posted 21 May 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02046564) enrolled 412 adults — 209 in the ASC-01 group and 203 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in depression symptoms using a clinician-rated questionnaire called the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), which scores depression from 0 to 60, where higher numbers indicate more severe symptoms. The trial also looked at several secondary measures, including the proportion of participants whose symptoms reduced by at least half, the proportion who reached a low-symptom threshold called "remission," and scores on two other depression rating tools. The reported data shows that, on the primary measure, participants in the ASC-01 group had an average decrease of 9.2 points on the MADRS scale from their starting score, while those in the placebo group had an average decrease of 7.2 points. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 37.5% of participants in the ASC-01 group had their MADRS score drop by 50% or more (called a "response"), compared with 25.6% in the placebo group. The remission rate — meaning scores dropped by 50% or more and also fell to 10 points or below — was reported as 29.3% for ASC-01 and 20.2% for placebo. On a separate clinician-rated scale measuring overall improvement (CGI-I), 46.2% of the ASC-01 group were rated as "much" or "very much" improved, compared with 34.5% in the placebo group. On two further depression scales (CGI-S and HAM-D17), the ASC-01 group showed average score reductions of 1.0 and 6.8 points respectively, while the placebo group showed reductions of 0.8 and 5.6 points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01155661 · results posted 17 April 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 608 participants, all of whom received a combination of an investigational drug called LY2216684 together with a type of antidepressant known as an SSRI (a commonly prescribed class of antidepressant medication). Of the 608 people who started the study, 328 completed it and 280 did not finish. The trial ran for 54 weeks and was measuring a range of things, including serious medical events, thoughts of suicide, sexual functioning, cognitive and physical wellbeing, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. The reported data shows that the primary thing being tracked was the number of participants who experienced a "clinically significant effect," which was defined in this trial as a serious medical event regardless of whether it was thought to be related to the treatment. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 13 out of 608 participants experienced such an event. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that approximately 11.71% of participants reported suicidal thoughts at some point during the trial, and 0.17% reported suicidal behaviour. On the depression symptom scale (scored 0–60, where higher means more severe symptoms), participants' scores changed by an average of about −16.97 points from the start to the end of the study — meaning scores were lower at the end than at the beginning. On the sexual functioning scale (scored 5–30, where higher means more difficulty), the average change was −2.28. On the cognitive and physical wellbeing questionnaire (scored 7–42, where higher means worse functioning), the average change was −8.64. On the anxiety and depression questionnaire's depression section (scored 0–21), the average change was −6.32. In all these scale scores, a negative number means the score was lower at the end of the study compared with the start. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01916824 · results posted 20 October 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01916824) involved two groups of people: 24 adults with Major Depressive Disorder and 29 people without depression (referred to as healthy controls). The trial was looking at decision-making abilities — specifically, how people make financial choices — in those with depression compared to those without, and whether six weeks of antidepressant treatment made any difference to those scores. Not everyone finished the study: 17 of the 24 people with depression and 20 of the 29 healthy controls completed it. The reported data shows that decision-making was measured using a series of computer-based tasks where participants could earn real money (between US$5 and US$40 per visit) depending on the choices they made. The idea was that using real money would make the tasks feel meaningful. The primary outcome — the amount of money earned across those tasks — was reported as an average score for each group. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, people with Major Depressive Disorder earned an average of US$23.20 at the start of the study and US$20.50 after six weeks of antidepressant treatment. The healthy controls earned an average of US$25.00 at the start and US$21.90 at the later time point. No other outcome measures appear to have been reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that these numbers simply describe what was recorded at each point in time for each group — the data does not include any further breakdown or explanation of what drove those figures. No secondary outcome measure data was reported in the submission. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02732561 · results posted 1 May 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02732561) enrolled 10 people in total — 5 in a group using a sham (inactive/dummy) device and 5 in a group using the actual intervention device. The trial was measuring two things: symptoms of depression and symptoms of anxiety, using two well-known rating questionnaires — the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (scored 0–50, where higher numbers mean more severe depression) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (scored 0–56, where higher numbers mean more severe anxiety). Not everyone finished the trial: 3 out of 5 people completed it in the sham group, and 4 out of 5 completed it in the intervention group. The reported data shows the following average scores at the end of the study. For depression, the sham device group had an average score of 13.0, while the intervention group had an average score of 6.5 — both sitting in the lower range of the scale. For anxiety, the sham device group had an average score of 8.0, and the intervention group had an average score of 6.0 — again, both at the lower end of the scale. It is important to note that this was a very small trial with only 5 people per group, and a number of participants did not complete it, which the reported data acknowledges but does not explain further. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01627782 · results posted 5 August 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 68 people in total across four groups, all of whom had depression. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ketamine or a placebo (an inactive substance used for comparison), given either two or three times per week. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in depression symptom scores — using a clinician-rated questionnaire called the MADRS, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms — from the start of the trial to day 15. The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, all four groups had similar average MADRS scores, ranging from about 33 to 37 out of 60. By day 15, the placebo groups showed average score reductions of around 5.7 points (twice-weekly group) and 3.1 points (three-times-weekly group). In comparison, the ketamine groups showed average reductions of around 18.4 points (twice-weekly) and 17.7 points (three-times-weekly). By day 29, the reported reductions were 23.5 and 1.0 points for the placebo groups, and 27.1 and 22.9 points for the ketamine groups. The reported data also shows that at day 15, 11 out of 18 people in the twice-weekly ketamine group and 7 out of 17 in the three-times-weekly ketamine group had their scores reduce by at least half, compared with 2 out of 17 and 1 out of 16 in the corresponding placebo groups. It is also worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete the trial — for example, only 1 person in each placebo group completed the study, compared with 12 and 11 in the ketamine groups — which the reported data does not fully explain. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01134731 · results posted 29 January 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 54 people in total — 23 in the paliperidone (an antipsychotic medication) group, 21 in the lithium group, and 10 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. The trial was measuring thoughts of suicide and symptoms of depression in people across these three groups over three months. It is worth noting that a large number of participants did not finish the study: only 10, 10, and 2 people completed the paliperidone, lithium, and placebo groups respectively. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — suicidal thinking — was measured using a questionnaire called the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation. This tool scores from 0 to 42, where lower numbers indicate fewer reported thoughts of suicide. After three months, the reported average scores were 22.1 for the paliperidone group, 22.1 for the lithium group, and 21.3 for the placebo group. For the secondary outcome — depressive symptoms — a separate questionnaire scored from 0 to 60 (again, lower is better) was used. The reported average scores were 37.5 for paliperidone, 39.6 for lithium, and 39.2 for placebo. The reported data does not include further statistical detail about how these groups compared to one another. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01808612 · results posted 12 May 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 513 people across three groups: 169 were assigned to receive 20 mg of fluoxetine, 84 to receive 40 mg of fluoxetine, and 260 to receive a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms over six weeks, using several standardised rating scales — essentially questionnaires where trained assessors or participants themselves scored the severity of symptoms, with higher scores meaning more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that on the main measure — the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (scored 0–64, where higher numbers mean more severe depression) — all three groups showed a reduction in scores from the start of the trial to the six-week mark. The 20 mg fluoxetine group had an average reduction of about 6.2 points, the 40 mg group about 6.3 points, and the placebo group about 6.9 points. On the secondary measures, the reported numbers told a similar story: across subscales measuring core depression symptoms, anxiety, sleep, and daily functioning, all three groups showed reductions of varying sizes, with the placebo group's figures generally similar to or slightly larger than those in the fluoxetine groups. When looking at the proportion of people whose scores improved by at least 50% ("response"), the reported figures were 23.8% for 20 mg fluoxetine, 18.1% for 40 mg fluoxetine, and 27.8% for placebo. For "remission" (scores dropping to 7 or below), the reported figures were 9.5%, 9.6%, and 15.1% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00985686 · results posted 6 March 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 63 young people aged 13 to 24 who were experiencing symptoms of depression. Participants were split into four groups based on age and whether they received the study program straight away or were placed on a waitlist. The younger group (aged 13–18) used a scale called the CDRS-R to measure depression symptom severity, while the older group (aged 19–24) used a scale called the HAMD. Both scales use numbered scores where higher numbers generally indicate more severe symptoms. Participants were measured at the start of the study, then again at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The reported data shows that, for the younger subgroup (Study Arm), the average CDRS-R score started at around 57 at the beginning of the study and was reported as approximately 34 by the 24-week point. For the younger Waitlist group, the starting score was around 59, ending at approximately 42 at 24 weeks. For the older subgroup (Study Arm), the average HAMD score began at around 22 and was reported as approximately 9 by 24 weeks. The older Waitlist group started at around 21 and reached approximately 8 by 24 weeks. The reported data for the secondary outcome measures — including scales for self-concept, mood, and spiritual wellbeing — was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01435759 · results posted 19 February 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether adding different doses of a drug called SPD489 (at 10 mg, 30 mg, 50 mg, or 70 mg) to an existing antidepressant could change depression symptom scores compared to adding a placebo (a dummy treatment). The trial had two main phases. First, 1,197 people started an antidepressant lead-in phase, of whom 855 completed it. Those who did not respond well enough then moved into a double-blind phase — meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew who was receiving which treatment — where 855 eligible participants were divided across the five groups (placebo and the four SPD489 doses), with roughly 78–80 people in each SPD489 or placebo group, and 463 people in a separate single-blind placebo group. The main thing being measured was change in a depression rating scale called the MADRS, which runs from 0 to 60, where lower scores indicate less severe depression. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — change in MADRS score from week 8 to week 16 — was a reduction of 5.4 points in the placebo group, and reductions of 6.7, 5.3, 6.1, and 6.3 points in the 10 mg, 30 mg, 50 mg, and 70 mg SPD489 groups respectively. The reported data also shows changes in blood pressure and heart rate as secondary outcomes. Average systolic (upper number) blood pressure changed by −0.2 mmHg in the placebo group, compared with +0.2, +0.5, +3.5, and +2.6 mmHg across the four SPD489 doses. Average diastolic (lower number) blood pressure changed by −0.1 mmHg in the placebo group, versus −0.9, −0.1, +2.8, and +1.9 mmHg in the SPD489 groups. Average pulse rate changed by −0.8 beats per minute in the placebo group, compared with +0.8, +5.3, +4.0, and +6.0 beats per minute across the four SPD489 doses. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00108277 · results posted 8 January 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00108277) enrolled 92 people in total across three groups: one group aimed at raising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels (29 people), one group aimed at lowering CO₂ levels (28 people), and a waitlist group who did not receive an active intervention (35 people). The trial was measuring episodic anxiety — that is, sudden bouts of intense anxiety or panic — using a questionnaire called the Episodic Anxiety Scale (EAS). This scale asks nine questions, with each answer scored from 0 (no problem at all) to 4 (worst possible), giving a total score anywhere between 0 and 36, where a higher number means more severe anxiety symptoms. Not everyone finished the study: 19 people completed it in the "raise CO₂" group, 16 in the "lower CO₂" group, and 19 in the waitlist group. The reported data shows the following average EAS scores at the end of the study period: the "raise CO₂" group scored an average of 8.1 out of 36, the "lower CO₂" group scored an average of 9.0 out of 36, and the waitlist group scored an average of 14.3 out of 36. No additional outcome measures or further breakdowns of the data appear to have been submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for this trial, so no other figures are available to report here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00411398 · results posted 10 December 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 15 participants, all of whom received a medication called memantine. The trial was measuring anxiety symptoms using a standard clinician-administered questionnaire called the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, which runs from 0 to 44, where a higher number indicates more severe anxiety. Of the 15 people who started the trial, 10 completed it and 5 did not. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, the average score on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale for participants in the memantine group was 10.9 out of a possible 44. To give that number some context, the scale is designed so that lower scores represent fewer or less severe anxiety symptoms, and higher scores represent more. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not include a starting (baseline) score for comparison, so the reported data does not allow a before-and-after comparison to be made from these figures alone. It is also worth noting that this was a small trial with only 15 participants, and the results as submitted reflect only the single group that received memantine — no comparison group data was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01834027 · results posted 22 August 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 56 women who had recently come out of surgery and were recovering in a post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) — the room where patients are monitored immediately after an operation. All 56 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. They were split into two equal groups of 28: one group listened to jazz music through headphones for 30 minutes, while the other group wore headphones but heard no music. The trial was measuring changes in heart rate, self-reported anxiety, and self-reported pain during their recovery period. The reported data shows that both groups experienced a gradual decrease in heart rate over the course of the measurements, with the figures ranging from roughly minus 3 to minus 9 beats per minute compared to where each person started — meaning heart rates fell slightly in both groups over time. For anxiety, participants rated their level on a scale of 0 to 10; the jazz music group reported an average change of 0.1 units (essentially no change from their starting score), while the no-music group reported an average change of 0 units. For pain, also rated on a 0–10 scale, the reported data shows small differences between the groups across several time points, with the jazz music group's scores nudging slightly upward from baseline and the no-music group's scores nudging slightly downward. For the mean blood pressure outcome, the data was not reported in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01473381 · results posted 8 August 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 1,162 people who were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), vilazodone at 20 mg per day, vilazodone at 40 mg per day, or citalopram at 40 mg per day. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms over 10 weeks, using a standard clinician-rated questionnaire called the MADRS (a 0–60 point scale where higher scores mean more severe symptoms, and a lower score over time means improvement). Between 189 and 210 participants in each group completed the full 10-week period. The reported data shows that all four groups had lower depression scores at Week 10 compared to where they started — remembering that a negative number here means a reduction in symptoms on the scale. The placebo group's score fell by an average of 14.76 points, the vilazodone 20 mg group fell by 17.33 points, the vilazodone 40 mg group fell by 17.58 points, and the citalopram group fell by 17.50 points. A similar pattern was seen on a second measure (the CGI-S, a 1–7 scale of overall illness severity): the placebo group's score dropped by 1.53 points on average, while all three medication groups dropped by approximately 1.86–1.88 points. For a third measure — the percentage of participants who reached and maintained a very low symptom score for at least the final two visits — the reported figures were 26.3% in the placebo group, 29.9% in the vilazodone 20 mg group, 33.5% in the vilazodone 40 mg group, and 31.1% in the citalopram group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01551303 · results posted 30 June 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 47 adults across two groups — 25 people received oxytocin (a naturally occurring hormone sometimes given as a nasal spray) and 22 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring whether oxytocin had any effect on how people learn to associate faces with positive, negative, or neutral information — a test known as an "Affective Learning Task." Participants viewed 30 neutral faces, each paired with a short sentence describing a positive, negative, or neutral behaviour, and were later asked to rate each face. Not everyone who started the trial finished it: 21 people in the oxytocin group and 15 in the placebo group completed the study. The reported data shows that after completing the task, participants in both groups rated the faces at very similar levels on a scale running from –1 (most negative) to +1 (most positive). The oxytocin group's average rating was –0.096 and the placebo group's average rating was –0.12 — both sitting very close to the middle (neutral) point of the scale. The trial's own description notes that, because this was not a study for treating a disease, there is no "better" or "worse" result to interpret from these numbers. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00596817 · results posted 31 March 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 639 people who had been diagnosed with depression. The study had two main stages: an open-label period (where everyone received vortioxetine at 5 mg or 10 mg and knew what they were taking), followed by a double-blind period (where participants were randomly assigned to either continue vortioxetine or switch to a placebo — a dummy treatment — without knowing which they were receiving). Of the 639 who started, 396 people entered the double-blind stage: 204 continued on vortioxetine and 192 received placebo. The trial's main focus was measuring whether participants' depression returned (called a "relapse") during the first 24 weeks of the double-blind period, using a standard depression questionnaire called the MADRS, which scores symptoms from 0 (no symptoms) to 60 (most severe). The reported data shows that in the first 24 weeks of the double-blind period, 26.0% of participants in the placebo group were recorded as having relapsed, compared with 13.2% in the vortioxetine group. Looking across the entire double-blind period (the secondary outcome), the reported figures were 30.2% for placebo and 15.2% for vortioxetine. The reported data also shows changes in depression and anxiety scores across several rating scales. For the MADRS depression scale, the placebo group's average score increased by 1.45 points from their starting score, while the vortioxetine group's average score decreased by 0.62 points. Similar patterns were reported on the other rating scales (HAM-D-17 for depression, HAM-A for anxiety, and CGI-S for overall illness severity), with the placebo group generally showing small score increases and the vortioxetine group showing small score decreases over the 24 weeks. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01115699 · results posted 13 December 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a treatment called repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) — a non-invasive procedure that uses magnetic pulses directed at the brain — in people with depression. The trial enrolled 2 participants, and both of them completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms using two standard questionnaires: one called the HRS-D17 (a 17-question rating scale where higher scores indicate more severe depression) and another called the QIDS-C16 (a 16-item questionnaire also used to rate the severity of depression symptoms). The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for either the primary outcome (the HRS-D17 depression scale) or the secondary outcome (the QIDS-C16 depression scale). In other words, while the trial ran and both participants finished, the actual before-and-after scores that would show any change in depression ratings were not reported in the data available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Given that only 2 people took part and no outcome figures were recorded in the public registry, there is very little information available from this trial about what the measurements showed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01180400 · results posted 20 November 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 295 people in total — 147 in the TC-5214 group and 148 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms in people with major depressive disorder who had not responded well to their current antidepressant. The main tool used to measure symptoms was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) — a 10-question scoring system where higher scores mean more severe depression symptoms, with a total possible range of 0 to 60. Around 122 people in the TC-5214 group and 121 in the placebo group completed the trial. The reported data shows that for the primary (main) outcome — the change in MADRS depression scores from the start of the treatment phase to the end — the TC-5214 group's average score fell by 11.7 points, while the placebo group's average score fell by 11.6 points. For the secondary (additional) outcomes, the reported data shows that approximately 48.3% of TC-5214 participants and 49.0% of placebo participants had their MADRS score drop by at least half (a marker the trial called a "response"). Regarding "remission" — defined as a MADRS score of 8 or below at the end of treatment — 33.8% of the TC-5214 group and 26.9% of the placebo group met this threshold. For outcomes measuring sustained response or remission over multiple later time points, the reported figures were similarly close between the two groups, ranging from roughly 7–15% for TC-5214 and 6–16% for placebo across the different definitions used. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00887224 · results posted 27 June 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 874 people who had been diagnosed with major depression. The study was designed in stages: first, all participants took a 50 mg dose of a medication called DVS SR (desvenlafaxine sustained release) in an open phase to see who responded. Those who responded and remained stable were then randomly assigned — without knowing which they were receiving — to either continue on DVS SR 50 mg or switch to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was how long it took for depression symptoms to return (called a "relapse") during this blinded phase, which ran for up to about 26 weeks. A total of 548 people entered the double-blind phase: 276 in the placebo group and 272 in the DVS SR group. The reported data shows that, by day 185 of the double-blind phase, the estimated probability of relapse was 30.2% for those in the placebo group and 14.3% for those in the DVS SR group. In plain terms, roughly 3 in 10 people in the placebo group and roughly 1 to 2 in 10 people in the DVS SR group had their depression return by that point, according to the figures submitted. For secondary measures — which were additional things the researchers tracked — the reported data shows that depression symptom scores (measured on standardised rating scales) tended to rise more in the placebo group than in the DVS SR group over the course of the double-blind phase, meaning scores moved further from where they started. For example, on one depression scale (HAM-D17), the placebo group's scores rose by up to around 2.37 points on average by the end, compared with up to around 0.69 points in the DVS SR group. At week 26, 201 out of 272 people in the DVS SR group and 148 out of 276 people in the placebo group met the reported definition of remission (a score of 7 or below on that same scale). The reported data also includes a clinician-rated impression of overall illness severity and overall improvement, with scores generally showing smaller changes from starting levels in the DVS SR group compared with the placebo group during the double-blind phase. It is important to note that all participants in this double-blind phase had already shown a response to DVS SR during the earlier open phase, so these figures relate specifically to that group of people, not to everyone who started the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01191788 · results posted 25 June 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 299 participants in total — 140 in the CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) group and 159 in the comparison group. Of those, 119 and 137 respectively completed the study. The trial was measuring depressive symptoms and general mental health functioning across both groups, using two standard self-reported questionnaires. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — a depression symptom questionnaire called the Beck Depression Inventory II (scored from 0 to 63, where a higher number means more severe symptoms) — the CBT group recorded an average score of 14.83, while the comparison group recorded an average score of 21.82. For the secondary measure — a general mental health functioning questionnaire called the SF-12 (scored from 0 to 100, where a higher number means better mental health functioning) — the CBT group recorded an average score of 44.71, compared to 38.44 in the comparison group. The reported data does not include information about when during the study these scores were recorded. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00789854 · results posted 23 May 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 688 people in total across three groups: 228 received quetiapine XR on its own (as a single treatment, referred to as "Mono"), 231 received quetiapine XR added on top of another existing treatment, and 229 received lithium added on top of another existing treatment. The trial ran for six weeks and was measuring changes in depressive symptoms in people who had not responded well to previous antidepressant treatments. Symptoms were tracked using a standardised depression rating scale called the MADRS, which runs from 0 to 60, where a lower score indicates fewer depressive symptoms. The reported data shows that, after six weeks, all three groups had lower (improved) MADRS scores compared to when they started. Using one method of analysis (called the "per protocol" set, which looks at people who closely followed the trial plan), the reported average score reductions were: minus 16.2 points for the quetiapine XR alone group, minus 17.2 points for the quetiapine XR add-on group, and minus 14.9 points for the lithium add-on group. Using a second method of analysis (called "modified intention to treat," which includes a broader group of participants), the reported average reductions were: minus 13.9, minus 15.1, and minus 13.3 points respectively. The reported data also shows the number of participants whose scores fell to 10 or below — a threshold the trial used to define "remission" (meaning very low depressive symptoms): 53 people in the quetiapine XR alone group, 73 in the quetiapine XR add-on group, and 60 in the lithium add-on group reached that threshold. When a stricter cut-off of 8 or below was applied, the numbers were 35, 58, and 45 respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page

• NCT00960986 · results posted 17 April 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether taking duloxetine (an antidepressant) with or without food, and at two different doses (30 mg or 60 mg), made a difference to the level of nausea people experienced. A total of 249 participants entered the main treatment phase across four groups. Notably, a large number of participants — between 20 and 30 in each group — did not complete the full seven-week therapy period. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was the peak level of nausea reported during treatment, scored on a scale of 0 (not present) to 3 (severe). For the higher 60 mg dose, the reported maximum nausea scores were 1.4 (with food) and 1.2 (without food). For the lower 30 mg dose, scores were 0.9 (with food) and 0.8 (without food). By the end of the eight-week period, the scores in all four groups had shifted only very slightly from where they started — the reported changes ranged from around −0.01 to −1.12 on that same 0–3 scale. The secondary measures tracked a broader range of stomach-related side effects, other common side effects, and depression symptom scores (using a standard depression questionnaire scored 0–52). The reported data shows depression scores fell across all four groups over eight weeks, with reductions ranging from about 13 to 15 points on that scale. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00578214 · results posted 9 February 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 75 people in total, split across three groups: 22 people who were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (a sedative medication), 22 who were randomly assigned to receive a placebo (an inactive substitute), and 31 who chose to receive midazolam in a separate non-randomised group. All 75 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things — how anxious participants felt, and how alert and mentally sharp they were — at different points in time, using simple self-rated scales and a short memory and thinking test. The reported data shows that anxiety levels (rated 0–10, where 0 means no anxiety) were low at the start across all groups: around 1.3 for the randomised midazolam group, 1.4 for the placebo group, and 3.4 for the prospective midazolam group. At 60 minutes, reported anxiety scores were 0.1, 0.8, and 1.0 respectively, and at 120 minutes they were 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8. For alertness (0–10, where higher scores mean feeling less awake), all groups started similarly at around 0.2. At 60 minutes, the randomised midazolam group reported 3.7, the placebo group 0.7, and the prospective midazolam group 5.1; at 120 minutes those figures were 2.1, 0.5, and 3.4. For the thinking and memory test (scored out of 30, where higher is better), all groups started near 29. At 60 minutes, the randomised midazolam group scored 22.9, the placebo group 29.4, and the prospective midazolam group 24.3. At 120 minutes, scores were 26.0, 29.2, and 27.5 respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00985504 · results posted 3 October 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 244 people in the duloxetine group and 239 in the escitalopram group — 483 participants in total. Both duloxetine and escitalopram are antidepressant medications. The trial was measuring changes in symptoms of apathy (a lack of motivation, interest, or emotion) in people who were already taking antidepressants. Apathy was assessed using a clinician-rated questionnaire called the AES-C, where higher scores mean more severe apathy. The trial ran in two phases: an acute treatment period and an optimisation period. The reported data shows that, on the primary measure — the AES-C apathy scale — both groups showed a reduction in their scores after 8 weeks. On a scale ranging from 18 to 72, the duloxetine group's average score fell by approximately 13.88 points, and the escitalopram group's average score fell by approximately 13.50 points. The reported data also shows broadly similar patterns across the secondary measures. On a separate self-reported apathy-related scale (the RSAT, scored 0–28), scores dropped by about 5.50 points in the duloxetine group and 4.98 in the escitalopram group. On a scale where participants rated their own sense of improvement (1 = very much better, 7 = very much worse), both groups averaged around 2.5, suggesting participants in both groups felt they were somewhat better. A clinician-rated measure of depression severity (MADRS, scored 0–60) also showed reductions of around 4 points in both groups. The results across all reported measures were numerically close between the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00612807 · results posted 26 April 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 42 people in total — 14 in a group receiving semi-weekly medication management alone, and 28 in a group receiving semi-weekly medication management plus weekly marital therapy. The trial was measuring two main things over time: the severity of depression symptoms (using a scale called the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, or HDRS, where a score of 0 means no symptoms and 50 means the most severe), and how well couples were getting along in their relationship (using a scale called the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, or DAS, where a score of 0 means very poor relationship functioning and 151 means very good). Of the 14 participants in the medication-only group, 12 completed the study; all 28 in the combined treatment group completed the study. The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, the medication-only group had an average depression score of 17.86 and the combined group had a score of 19.0 on the HDRS. Across several follow-up time points reported, both groups showed lower average HDRS scores over time — the reported figures across measurement points for the medication-only group were 5.00, 9.17, 5.14, 5.33, and 3.83, and for the combined group were 7.29, 8.14, 8.86, 3.29, and 5.71. For relationship functioning on the DAS, the medication-only group started at an average score of 72.14 and the combined group at 84.43, with both groups reporting higher average scores at later time points — the medication-only group's scores across follow-up points were 84.17, 89.67, 91.00, 93.33, and 104.17, while the combined group's were 92.27, 91.07, 88.29, 97.57, and 98.31. The reported data for the four secondary outcome measures — which looked at things like partner behaviour, conflict, mood disorder diagnosis, and relationship intimacy — were not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no numbers are available for those measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00683592 · results posted 27 October 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 240 people in the vilazodone group and 241 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group, for a total of 481 participants. The trial was measuring symptoms of depression over 8 weeks, using several standard rating scales commonly used in depression research. The main scale used was the MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale), where a lower score means fewer depression symptoms. Around 193 people in the vilazodone group and 195 in the placebo group completed the full 8 weeks. The reported data shows that, on the main MADRS scale (which runs from 0 to 60, with higher numbers meaning more severe symptoms), the vilazodone group's scores dropped by an average of 13.3 points from the start of the trial, while the placebo group's scores dropped by an average of 10.8 points. On a second depression scale (the HAM-D 17), the reported drops were 10.7 points for vilazodone and 9.1 points for placebo. On an anxiety scale (HAM-A), the reported drops were 7.0 points for vilazodone and 5.7 points for placebo. A clinician's overall impression scale (CGI-I, rated 1–7 where lower is more improved) showed scores of 2.5 for vilazodone and 2.8 for placebo at week 8. The reported data also shows that 101 out of 231 participants in the vilazodone group met the criteria for a meaningful reduction in depression symptoms ("response"), compared with 70 out of 232 in the placebo group. For full symptom relief ("remission"), 63 vilazodone participants and 47 placebo participants met that threshold. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00422162 · results posted 2 October 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 339 people in total — 167 in a group taking 60 mg of duloxetine and 172 in a group taking 120 mg of duloxetine. The trial was measuring changes in depression symptom scores over time using two standard rating tools: the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), a 10-question checklist where higher scores mean more severe symptoms (scored 0–60), and the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-6), which looks at six core depression symptoms (scored 0–22). Of those who started, 143 people in the 60 mg group and 142 in the 120 mg group completed the study. The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, both groups had average MADRS scores of around 36 out of 60, indicating relatively high symptom severity. The primary outcome — the change in that score after four weeks — showed an average drop of about 20 points in the 60 mg group and about 19.9 points in the 120 mg group. The reported data also shows changes in HAMD-6 scores, where participants who were classified as "responders" (those who had a larger reduction in symptoms) saw bigger drops than those classified as "non-responders." For example, in the 60 mg group, responders showed an average HAMD-6 drop of 7.5 points compared to 3.4 points for non-responders. For participants who did not respond well enough at their starting dose and had their dose increased, further score reductions were also reported, though specific figures varied by group. The reported data also includes clinician-rated scores for overall illness severity (CGI-S, scored 1–7) and perceived improvement (CGI-I, scored 1–7), both of which showed lower numbers over the course of the study in both groups — though what those changes mean clinically is not something this summary can interpret. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00389064 · results posted 23 June 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 450 people — 223 in the quetiapine XR (extended-release) group and 227 in the placebo (inactive treatment) group. The trial measured changes in anxiety symptoms over roughly nine weeks, using a number of standard rating scales that assign numerical scores to things like anxiety severity, physical symptoms, and quality of life. Of those who started, 178 people in the quetiapine XR group and 168 in the placebo group completed the trial. The reported data shows that on the main measure — the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (a scoring tool where lower numbers mean fewer anxiety symptoms, running from 0 to 56) — the quetiapine XR group's scores dropped by an average of about 15 points from their starting score, compared to a drop of about 7 points in the placebo group. On a clinician-rated severity scale (scored 1 to 7, where lower is better), the quetiapine XR group's scores fell by an average of 1.76 points versus 0.59 points in the placebo group. For quality of life (measured as a percentage, where a higher number means greater satisfaction), the quetiapine XR group showed an average increase of around 14.8 percentage points compared to around 4.9 in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that 152 out of 223 participants in the quetiapine XR group had their anxiety scale score drop by 50% or more, compared to 54 out of 227 in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00803400 · results posted 5 December 2008

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 150 people split into two equal groups of 75. One group received the medication alprazolam on its own, while the other received alprazolam combined with an aerobic exercise programme. By the end of the trial, 55 people in the medication-only group and 51 in the combined group had completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in anxiety symptoms and overall clinical impressions using three rating scales. The reported data shows the following numbers at the end of the study. On the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale — a 14-question tool where higher scores indicate more severe anxiety symptoms (scored from 0 to 56) — both groups recorded very similar average scores: 22.59 for the medication-only group and 22.73 for the medication-plus-exercise group. On the Clinical Global Impression Severity scale — a 7-point rating of how unwell a person appears overall, where higher numbers mean more severe illness — both groups again recorded almost identical averages: 4.05 for the medication-only group and 4.06 for the combined group. On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale — a 7-point rating of how much a person's condition has changed since the start, where 1 means "very much improved" and 7 means "very much worse" — the medication-only group averaged 2.70 and the medication-plus-exercise group averaged 1.86. It is worth noting that the data as submitted describes these figures as "endpoint" scores, but the baseline (starting point) scores from which these changes were measured were not separately reported in the structured results, so a direct before-and-after comparison cannot be made from the available data alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Depression and Anxiety page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.