Reported trial results for OCD

44 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

• NCT05237466 · results posted 16 July 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 36 people in total — 18 in a programme called RECLAIM (Reducing Clutter and Increasing Meaning) and 18 in a comparison group called Sorting Practice. The trial was measuring things like how often participants sorted or got rid of items, their readiness to make changes, and levels of apathy (a reduced drive to do things). It is worth noting that a significant number of participants did not finish the trial: 9 of the 18 in the RECLAIM group and 11 of the 18 in the Sorting Practice group did not complete it. The reported data shows the following results at the end of the study. For how often people sorted or discarded items, the RECLAIM group reported doing so on about 38.6% of days between sessions, compared with 29.1% for the Sorting Practice group. On the readiness-for-change questionnaire (scored from -2 to 14, where higher means more ready), both groups scored 10. On the apathy scale (scored 18–72, where higher means more apathy), the RECLAIM group scored 58 and the Sorting Practice group scored 63. For the secondary measures, both groups scored 55 out of 70 on a scale measuring how acceptable and manageable they found their treatment. On a measure of hoarding-related symptoms (scored 0–92, higher meaning more severe), the RECLAIM group scored 33 and the Sorting Practice group scored 36. A pictorial rating of clutter levels in the home (scored 1–9) showed the RECLAIM group averaging 2.9 and the Sorting Practice group averaging 2.2. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

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

• NCT04225624 · results posted 10 March 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial took place in two phases. In the first phase, 3 people took part in a small pilot test of the programme. In the second phase, 62 people were randomly placed into one of two talking-therapy groups: 31 received a therapy focused on training attention as part of an emotion regulation approach (called AR-ERT), and 31 received a more general supportive psychotherapy (SPT). The trial was primarily measuring levels of repetitive negative thinking — that is, how much people found themselves stuck in unhelpful, looping thoughts. It also measured worry, rumination (dwelling on distressing feelings), mental rituals (such as internally arguing with or countering unwanted thoughts), OCD symptom severity, and generalised anxiety symptoms. All of these were tracked at the start of the trial, at 8 weeks, and at a 3-month follow-up. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of repetitive negative thinking (scored 0–60, where higher means more negative thinking), both groups started with average scores around 45–46 at the beginning. By 8 weeks, the AR-ERT group's average score had dropped to around 34.9 and the SPT group's to around 36.6. At the 3-month follow-up, scores were reported as approximately 25.9 for AR-ERT and 32.0 for SPT. For the secondary measures, both groups also showed lower average scores across worry, rumination, mental rituals, OCD symptoms, and anxiety symptoms at the 8-week and 3-month time points compared to where they started, with the reported numbers moving in a similar direction for both groups across all measures. The exact starting and follow-up figures for each measure are detailed in the ClinicalTrials.gov record. It is important to note that this trial compared two active therapies against each other — there was no untreated control group — so the reported numbers describe what was measured within and between these two specific groups only. No conclusions about what caused any changes in scores can be drawn from these numbers 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 ↗

• NCT04075890 · results posted 12 December 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04075890) enrolled 66 people in total — 32 healthy volunteers and 34 people with OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder). Each group was split further depending on whether they received brain scanning (fMRI) first or a type of mild brain stimulation called tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) first, before crossing over to the other. The trial was measuring three things: how strongly people used a deliberate, goal-directed style of decision-making (rather than acting out of habit); how long people could tolerate looking at images related to OCD themes before pressing a button to stop; and the strength of a communication pathway between two regions of the brain involved in decision-making and habit formation. The reported data shows the following numbers across the four groups. For goal-directed decision-making strength (scored between 0 and 1, where 1 means fully goal-directed), the reported values were 0.09 for healthy participants who had brain scanning first, 0.07 for healthy participants who had brain stimulation first, −0.08 for OCD participants who had brain scanning first, and 0.06 for OCD participants who had brain stimulation first. For the time participants tolerated OCD-themed images before stopping, the reported figures were 5.6 seconds and 5.5 seconds for the two healthy groups, and 4.3 seconds and 4.8 seconds for the two OCD groups. For the brain communication pathway measure (scored between −1 and +1), the reported values were −0.07 and −0.06 for the healthy groups, and −0.003 and −0.004 for the OCD groups. No further breakdown of these numbers — such as before-and-after comparisons within individuals — was reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that not everyone who started the trial finished it. Across both phases, one person from each of the three smaller groups and three people from the largest OCD group did not complete the study; the reasons were not detailed 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 ↗

• NCT02843308 · results posted 21 November 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02843308) involved 41 people in total, split into two groups: 21 people who received treatment straight away (the "Immediate Treatment" group) and 20 people who were placed on a waiting period before receiving treatment (the "Delayed Treatment" group). The trial was measuring hoarding-related symptoms using a questionnaire called the Saving Inventory-Revised (SI-R), which asks 23 questions about difficulties with throwing things away, collecting too many items, and living with clutter. The total score on this questionnaire can range from 0 to 92, where a higher score means more severe symptoms. The trial looked at how many people in each group showed a meaningful change — defined as a drop of at least 14 points in their total score. The reported data shows that, out of the participants assessed, 9 people in the Immediate Treatment group and 13 people in the Delayed Treatment group met or exceeded that 14-point reduction in their score. By the time the study ended, 18 people from the Immediate Treatment group and 19 from the Delayed Treatment group had completed the trial, with 3 and 1 people respectively not completing it. No secondary outcome measures were included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further figures are available to describe. 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 ↗

• NCT03734705 · results posted 29 May 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 32 people in total — 17 in a group that did a type of writing exercise called "imaginal exposure writing" (where participants wrote about distressing hoarding-related scenarios) and 15 in a group that did neutral, everyday writing. All 32 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring hoarding-related symptoms and thought patterns using several questionnaire-based scales, before and after the writing exercises. The reported data shows the following score changes across the two groups. For the primary measure — a 23-item hoarding symptom questionnaire scored from 0 to 92 (higher meaning more severe symptoms) — the imaginal exposure writing group started at an average of 62.41 and finished at 53.41, while the neutral writing group started at 62.60 and finished at 52.00. For a measure of acquiring behaviours (scored 18–126), the imaginal exposure group went from 62.88 to 56.76, and the neutral writing group went from 57.93 to 47.47. For a measure of discomfort with uncertainty (scored 27–135), the imaginal exposure group went from 68.47 to 65.06, and the neutral writing group went from 72.27 to 65.47. For a measure of avoiding uncomfortable thoughts and feelings (scored 7–49), the imaginal exposure group went from 24.94 to 22.06, and the neutral writing group went from 28.33 to 22.13. In all cases, lower scores at the end of the trial represent a reduction in the symptom or behaviour being measured. The reported data does not include statistical analysis results comparing the two groups directly, so no conclusions about which writing approach produced greater change can be drawn from the figures alone. The trial was a small study and these numbers reflect only the averages for the people who took part. 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 ↗

• NCT04922502 · results posted 15 January 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 136 children with anxiety, split into two groups. One group of 66 received "Standard SPACE" (a therapist-delivered treatment programme), while the other group of 70 received a "Bibliotherapy, Low Therapist Contact SPACE" version — meaning families worked mainly through written materials with less direct therapist involvement. Of those who started, 60 in the first group and 62 in the second group completed the trial. The trial's main measurement was a clinician-rated scale called the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, which scores anxiety severity from 0 to 35, where higher numbers mean greater severity. The reported data shows that at the end of the study, the Standard SPACE group had an average score of 10.86, and the Bibliotherapy group had an average score of 10.96. Two additional measurements were also reported. A general severity rating (Clinical Global Impression-Severity, scored 0–6, where higher means more severe) showed averages of 2.42 for the Standard SPACE group and 2.52 for the Bibliotherapy group. A third measure — a detailed diagnostic interview called the ADIS-IV — was listed as a secondary outcome, but the reported data shows no numerical results were submitted for that measure. 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 ↗

• NCT04136626 · results posted 25 November 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04136626) enrolled 120 people with OCD — 60 in a program called "Perspectives OCD" and 60 in a comparison program called "The Health and Well-Being Program." The trial was measuring OCD symptom severity, depression, day-to-day functioning, and quality of life across three time points: before the program started, at the end of 12 weeks of treatment, and after a 12-month follow-up period. By the end of the full 12-month follow-up, 49 people in the Perspectives OCD group and 39 in the comparison group had completed all stages. The reported data shows that OCD symptom severity — measured on a scale of 0 to 40, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms — started at around 25 for the Perspectives OCD group and 24 for the comparison group. By week 12, those figures had dropped to roughly 19 and 20 respectively, and by the 12-month follow-up, to around 16 and 18. For depression (scored 0–27), both groups started at approximately 8–9, fell to around 7 at week 12, and were near 6–7 at follow-up. For day-to-day functioning difficulties (scored 0–40, higher meaning more impairment), both groups started around 19–21, dropped to roughly 16 at week 12, and were around 12–15 at follow-up. Quality of life (reported as a percentage out of 100, where higher means better) started at roughly 57–59% in both groups, rose to about 63% at week 12, and was around 63–67% at the 12-month follow-up. The reported data shows these numbers across both groups over time, but the trial data as submitted does not include a direct statistical comparison between the two groups, so any difference between them cannot be characterised further from the available figures. 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 ↗

• NCT03828461 · results posted 1 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03828461) involved 13 participants who all received a combination treatment referred to as "BITS + VR" — a behavioural therapy approach paired with virtual reality. The trial was measuring changes in hoarding-related symptoms, specifically how much difficulty people had with clutter, discarding items, and acquiring new possessions. Of the 13 people who started, 9 completed the trial and 4 did not finish. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — hoarding symptom severity — was measured using a questionnaire called the Saving Inventory-Revised (SI-R), which produces a total score between 0 and 92 (a score above 41 is considered to indicate significant difficulty with clutter). The reported average change in score across participants was 14.2 points. For context, this figure represents how much the score shifted over the course of the trial, though the direction of that change (whether scores went up or down) was not explicitly stated in the submitted data. For the secondary outcome, clutter levels were rated using a photo-based scale (the Clutter Image Rating Scale), where scores range from 1 (least cluttered) to 9 (most cluttered), with a score of 4 or above considered significant. The reported average change in this score was 0.77 points. As with the primary outcome, the submitted data does not explicitly state the direction of the change. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 13 participants and a single group, meaning there was no comparison 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 ↗

• NCT04792645 · results posted 1 August 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medication called memantine compared to a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) in people with trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling) or skin picking disorder. A total of 100 people were enrolled — 45 in the placebo group and 55 in the memantine group. Of those, 36 placebo participants and 43 memantine participants completed the study. The trial ran for 10 weeks and used several questionnaires to measure the severity of symptoms, day-to-day functioning, and mood over 8 weeks of treatment. The reported data shows the following numbers. On the main symptom severity scale (scored 0–20, where higher means worse), scores in the placebo group dropped by an average of 1.19 points from the start, while scores in the memantine group dropped by an average of 6.98 points. On a clinician's overall impression of improvement scale, 3 people in the placebo group and 26 people in the memantine group were rated as "much" or "very much" improved by week 8. On a self-reported hair pulling/skin picking scale (0–28), the placebo group's average score fell by 3.09 points and the memantine group's fell by 6.95 points. A skin picking-specific scale (0–48) showed average decreases of 2.44 points (placebo) and 7.00 points (memantine). A measure of how much symptoms interfered with daily life (0–30) showed average decreases of 1.66 points (placebo) and 5.73 points (memantine). Finally, a depression rating scale showed average score decreases of 1.31 points (placebo) and 2.90 points (memantine). In all cases, a decrease in score indicates a reduction from the starting level. 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 ↗

• NCT03239210 · results posted 3 July 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 62 people in total — 33 in the ondansetron group and 29 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. Of those, 27 and 24 respectively completed the study. The trial was investigating whether ondansetron, a medication more commonly known for treating nausea, had any effect on brain activity and symptom scores in participants, likely in the context of a condition involving tics or obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Brain activity was measured using a type of brain scan (fMRI) that tracks blood flow as a stand-in for brain activity, while participants watched videos of body-related movements compared to neutral movements. The reported data shows that for brain activity in two regions of interest — the insula cortex and the somatosensory cortex — both groups showed changes from the start of the trial to the end. In the ondansetron group, the reported change scores were -0.071 (insula) and -0.097 (somatosensory cortex), compared to -0.0094 and -0.0052 in the placebo group. These numbers reflect how much brain activity changed over the course of the study, with a more negative number indicating a larger change. For the secondary measures — questionnaire-based scores rating sensory experiences, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and tic severity — the reported data shows average score reductions in both groups. Tic severity scores (YGTSS) decreased by 1.4 points in the ondansetron group and 3.6 points in the placebo group, while obsessive-compulsive symptom scores (Y-BOCS) decreased by 2.25 points in the ondansetron group and 1 point in the placebo group. Sensory phenomena scores decreased by 1.646 and 1.204 points respectively. It is important to note that these figures simply describe what was measured and recorded — they do not on their own tell us whether any difference between the groups is meaningful. 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 ↗

• NCT03530800 · results posted 2 June 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03530800) looked at a medication called dronabinol (a synthetic cannabinoid) compared to a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) in people with trichotillomania (compulsive hair-pulling) and/or skin-picking conditions. A total of 50 people took part — 25 in the dronabinol group and 25 in the placebo group. The trial ran for 10 weeks, and the main things being measured were the severity of hair-pulling symptoms and skin-picking symptoms, using two standardised questionnaires scored at the start and end of the study. Not everyone finished the trial — 11 people in the dronabinol group and 9 in the placebo group did not complete it, though the reasons were not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows that for hair-pulling symptoms, the dronabinol group scored an average of 12.38 out of 20 on the hair-pulling scale (where higher means more severe), while the placebo group scored an average of 10.63. For skin-picking symptoms, the dronabinol group scored an average of 24.44 out of 48 on the skin-picking scale, while the placebo group scored an average of 28.50. It is important to note that these appear to be scores at a point in time rather than clearly labelled "change from baseline" figures — the data as submitted does not separately report the starting scores, so a direct before-and-after comparison cannot be made from the figures provided 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 ↗

• NCT02028247 · results posted 11 November 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 167 children or young people across three groups: 77 received a personalised form of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT — a talking therapy that helps people manage their thoughts and feelings), 71 received a standard version of CBT, and 19 received treatment as usual (their normal care). By the end of the study, 67, 59, and 15 participants respectively had completed the trial. The trial was measuring changes in anxiety symptoms and related impacts over 16 weeks, using several questionnaires and clinician ratings. The reported data shows that on the primary measure — a clinician-rated anxiety scale running from 0 to 25 (where higher means more severe) — all three groups started at similar levels (around 3.3 to 3.5 out of 25). After 16 weeks, the reported average scores were 2.13 for the personalised CBT group, 2.43 for the standard CBT group, and 2.93 for the treatment-as-usual group. On a secondary measure where clinicians rated whether participants showed a positive response to treatment, the reported data shows 92.4% of the personalised CBT group, 81.0% of the standard CBT group, and 11.1% of the treatment-as-usual group were rated as positively improved. On parent-completed questionnaires measuring anxiety/depression symptoms and the impact of anxiety on school, social, and family life, the reported numbers also showed differences between groups at the 16-week mark, though the starting scores across all groups were broadly similar. 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 ↗

• NCT01302080 · results posted 8 October 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 941 participants in total — 696 in the Sertraline group and 245 in the Psychotherapy group. Of those, 330 in the Sertraline group and 102 in the Psychotherapy group completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in a type of thinking and mental processing ability — specifically, how quickly and accurately people could complete a task called the "Trail B" test, which involves connecting numbered and lettered circles in a specific alternating order as fast as possible. This was tracked at six points over 30 months (at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months). The results also included a third group labelled "Other Antidepressants," though this group does not appear in the participant enrolment numbers as reported. The reported data shows scores were converted into what is called a "Z-score" — a number that compares each participant's result to what would be expected for someone of their age (a score of zero means exactly average, negative numbers mean performing better than average for age, and positive numbers mean performing worse). At the 3-month mark, the reported baseline scores were above zero for all three groups (Sertraline: 1.03, Other Antidepressants: 1.23, Psychotherapy: 0.61), suggesting participants were starting below average for their age on this task. The change scores at 3 months were −0.39 for Sertraline, −0.09 for Other Antidepressants, and −0.03 for Psychotherapy — meaning all groups moved slightly closer to the age-average. At later time points, the reported changes from baseline were also in the negative direction across all groups: for example, at 6 months (−0.64, −0.65, −0.16), at 12 months (−0.72, −0.22, −0.27), at 18 months (−0.57, −0.65, −0.22), at 24 months (−0.44, −1.08, −0.18), and at 30 months (−0.74, −0.61, −0.18). 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 ↗

• NCT02797808 · results posted 5 January 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02797808) involved two groups of children: 23 children diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and 18 children without OCD who acted as a comparison group. The trial was measuring the severity of OCD symptoms over 12 weeks, as well as looking at brain activity patterns — specifically how different parts of the brain communicate with each other at rest — using brain scans (fMRI). Of those who started, 16 children with OCD and 15 children without OCD completed the study. The reported data shows that OCD symptom severity, measured using a standard rating scale called the CY-BOCS (which runs from 0 to 40, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms), was 14.1 for the children with OCD at the 12-week mark. The comparison group of children without OCD scored 0 on this scale at the same time point, which is expected as they did not have an OCD diagnosis. Regarding the brain scan measurements, the reported data shows a series of scores reflecting how strongly certain brain regions were communicating with each other at different time points — these were reported as "z-scores" (a way of expressing the strength of a brain connection). The reported figures for the children with OCD across the measured brain regions ranged from 0.15 to 3.03, while for the children without OCD they ranged from 0.60 to 2.41. The data as submitted does not provide enough labelling detail to clearly match each individual z-score to a specific brain region or time point beyond what is listed. 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 ↗

• NCT02473913 · results posted 4 November 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at milk thistle as a possible treatment for trichotillomania — a condition where people repeatedly pull out their own hair. The study enrolled 22 people in total (11 in each group) and used a "crossover" design, meaning everyone tried both milk thistle and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) at different points across a 13-week period. By the end of the study, 8 people in each group had completed the trial, with 3 from each group not finishing. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a symptom-severity score called the NIMH-TSS (a questionnaire with scores from 0 to 25, where higher means more severe). Before treatment, both the milk thistle group and the placebo group had an average score of 9.4. After their respective treatment periods, the milk thistle group's average score dropped to 6.3, while the placebo group's average score dropped to 7.4. Several secondary measures were also reported — covering things like self-rated hair-pulling severity, overall illness severity, daily functioning, anxiety, and depression — and in all of these, scores appeared to decrease (improve) from their starting points in both the milk thistle and placebo groups. For example, on the self-rated hair-pulling scale (scored 0–28), milk thistle scores went from 13.5 to 10.4, while placebo scores went from 14.7 to 12.3. The reported data does not include statistical testing results that would indicate whether any differences between the two groups were meaningful beyond 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 ↗

• NCT02911324 · results posted 28 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at nabilone (a synthetic cannabis-like medication) in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A total of 16 people took part — 9 in a group receiving nabilone alone, and 7 in a group receiving nabilone combined with a type of therapy called EX/RP (exposure and response prevention, a talking therapy for OCD). Twelve participants completed the study — 6 in each group. The trial measured changes in OCD symptom severity using a standard rating tool called the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), which runs from 0 to 40, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that, at the start of the study, the nabilone-only group had an average YBOCS score of 24.0, and the combined nabilone and therapy group had an average score of 14.2. After four weeks, the reported change in scores — that is, how much the scores shifted from the start to week four — was 2.5 points for the nabilone-only group and 11.2 points for the combined group. A positive number here means scores went down (i.e., symptoms were rated as less severe at week four compared to the start). The trial also measured how easy it was to recruit participants, reporting that an average of 0.73 people per month were enrolled over the recruitment period. It is worth noting that this was a very small study, and the reported numbers reflect only this specific group of participants. 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 ↗

• NCT02040805 · results posted 11 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 323 adults in total — 160 assigned to a Group Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) program and 163 assigned to a Peer Facilitated Support Group. By the end of the study, 118 people in the CBT group and 113 in the peer support group had completed it, meaning 42 and 50 people respectively did not finish. The trial was measuring hoarding symptoms and their impact on daily life, using two self-reported questionnaires: the Saving Inventory-Revised (SI-R), which scores hoarding severity from 0 to 92 (with scores of 42 or above considered clinically significant), and the Activities of Daily Living – Hoarding scale (ADL-H), which scores difficulties with daily tasks caused by hoarding from 0 to 75. In both scales, higher numbers indicate greater difficulty. The reported data shows that before treatment began, average SI-R scores were 64.5 for the CBT group and 66.4 for the peer support group — both well above the 42-point threshold for clinically significant hoarding. After treatment, the reported average scores had fallen to 45.9 (CBT group) and 47.8 (peer support group). For daily functioning (ADL-H), starting scores were reported as 29.9 (CBT) and 32.0 (peer support), dropping to 25.5 and 26.1 respectively after treatment. A follow-up assessment conducted at least three months after treatment was also reported: SI-R scores at that point were 48.2 (CBT) and 47.9 (peer support), and ADL-H scores were 27.6 (CBT) and 27.8 (peer support). 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 ↗

• NCT02205177 · results posted 5 August 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at an app called "Anxiety Coach" as a tool for children and adolescents experiencing anxiety. Ten young people took part in total — eight were assigned to a group that used the app alongside face-to-face sessions with an anxiety coach (FTF-AC), and two were assigned to a group that used the app with only minimal contact with a coach (MC-AC). Of those who started, six from the face-to-face group and both participants from the minimal-contact group completed the study. The main thing being measured was how anxiety symptom scores changed between the start and the end of the trial, using a tool called the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). This is a clinician-rated interview where parents and young people provide input, producing a score from 0 to 25, with higher scores meaning more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the face-to-face group had a score change of 11 points, while participants in the minimal-contact group had a score change of −1 point. It is important to note that these figures represent the *change* from each group's starting score, not the starting or finishing scores themselves, and the very small number of participants — particularly only two in the minimal-contact group — means these numbers should be read with great caution. A secondary measure tracked how many participants completed a follow-up interview about their experience with the app; the reported data shows that 5 participants in the face-to-face group completed this interview, while the data was not reported for the minimal-contact group (recorded as 0 completions). 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 ↗

• NCT03002753 · results posted 16 April 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at three approaches for people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): a technique called Detached Mindfulness, a technique called Cognitive Restructuring, and a Waitlist group (where participants waited without receiving either technique). In the first round of the trial, 10 people started in the Detached Mindfulness group, 12 in the Cognitive Restructuring group, and 21 in the Waitlist group. There was also a second round of randomisation — where some participants were reassigned — with 11 starting in the Detached Mindfulness group and 10 in the Cognitive Restructuring group. The main thing being measured was the change in OCD symptom severity, using a standard questionnaire called the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), which runs from 0 to 40, with higher numbers meaning more severe symptoms. The reported data shows the average change in Y-BOCS scores from before to after the trial period. A higher change score here would mean a bigger reduction in reported symptom severity. The Detached Mindfulness group showed an average change of 5.11 points, the Cognitive Restructuring group showed an average change of 5.09 points, and the Waitlist group showed an average change of 0.25 points. No other outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further details about any additional measurements were not 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 ↗

• NCT02671266 · results posted 23 November 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 41 people in total across two groups — 20 in one group and 21 in the other. Participants included people diagnosed with Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), people with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and healthy volunteers with no diagnosis. The trial used a "crossover" design, meaning everyone received both a nasal oxytocin spray and a placebo (an inactive spray with no medicine) at different times, so the two groups reflect the order in which they received each. The trial was measuring whether oxytocin influenced how people recognise emotions, interpret ambiguous situations, pay attention to threatening images, and behave in a trust-based game. Two participants did not complete the study — one from each group. The reported data shows the following numbers across the four things measured. For the **emotion recognition task** (scored 0–24, higher meaning more correct answers), scores across the different conditions ranged roughly from about 15.7 to 18.9 across both groups and both orders of treatment. For the **interpretation questionnaire** (scored 0–44, higher meaning a greater tendency toward negative interpretations), scores ranged from roughly 20.9 to 33.3 across the different scenario types and groups. For the **attention task** measuring how quickly people responded to different image types, response times ranged from approximately 581 to 738 milliseconds across the conditions. For the **trust game** (scored 0–10 game dollars, higher meaning more trust shown), the reported average amounts transferred ranged from about 5.2 to 8.0 game dollars across the different participant subgroups. The reported data does not include information about whether the differences between the oxytocin and placebo conditions were considered meaningful by the researchers, and no further breakdown of results by diagnosis subgroup was provided in the structured 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 ↗

• NCT02059980 · results posted 26 September 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a type of brain training called "response inhibition training" — essentially practising the ability to stop or hold back automatic actions — in people with either obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or trichotillomania (a condition involving repetitive hair pulling). A total of 33 people started the trial: 18 in the active training group and 15 in a placebo (inactive) control group. Of those, 16 and 14 respectively completed the study, with a small number dropping out from each group. The reported data shows two main things were measured: symptom severity (using standardised rating scales combined into a single score, where a higher number means more severe symptoms) and a reaction-time test that estimates how quickly a person can stop themselves from making a response (measured in milliseconds). For symptom severity, the active training group's scores moved from approximately −0.38 at the start, to −0.89 mid-way, and −1.20 at the end; the placebo group's scores moved from 0.46, to −0.52, and −0.71 at the same time points. For the stopping-reaction-time test, both groups started at around 225 milliseconds and both moved to roughly 208–211 milliseconds by the end, meaning the reported figures were similar across groups at all time points. The reported data also includes two secondary measures. On a clinician-rated overall illness scale (scored 1–7, higher meaning more unwell), the active training group went from 3.67 to 3.20, while the placebo group went from 4.00 to 3.69. On a computer task counting how often participants failed to stop a response when they should have, the active training group recorded approximately 10, 11, and 9 errors across the three time points, while the placebo group recorded approximately 9, 16, and 12. 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 ↗

• NCT01411774 · results posted 23 January 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 142 young people, split into two groups. One group of 72 received cognitive-behavioural therapy (a structured talking therapy often called CBT) alongside a placebo pill — a dummy pill with no active ingredient. The other group of 70 received the same CBT alongside a medication called D-cycloserine. The trial was measuring the severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms in both groups after treatment. The reported data shows that OCD symptom severity was measured using a tool called the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, which runs from 0 to 40, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms. At the end of the study, the CBT-plus-placebo group recorded an average score of 13.53, and the CBT-plus-D-cycloserine group recorded an average score of 13.98. A second measure, called the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale (a clinician's rating from 0 to 6, again where higher means more severe), showed an average score of 2.23 for the placebo group and 2.28 for the D-cycloserine group. Both groups had similar scores on both measures at the study's end. It is worth noting that 3 participants in the D-cycloserine group did not complete the trial, while all 72 participants in the placebo group did; the reported data does not explain the reasons for non-completion. 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 ↗

• NCT01875445 · results posted 19 May 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether inositol (a naturally occurring sugar-like substance) compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) might affect hair-pulling behaviour, a condition sometimes called trichotillomania. A total of 38 people took part — 19 in the placebo group and 19 in the inositol group — and the study ran for 10 weeks per person. Notably, the reported data shows that 7 people in the placebo group did not complete the study, while all 19 in the inositol group finished. The reported data shows that two rating scales were used to measure hair-pulling severity. The primary scale — the NIMH Trichotillomania Symptom Severity Scale — gave a final average score of 8.4 out of a possible range for both the placebo group and the inositol group. The secondary measure — the Massachusetts General Hospital Hairpulling Scale — gave a final average score of 14.5 for the placebo group and 13.2 for the inositol group. These numbers represent where participants scored on these questionnaires at the end of the study; the data as submitted does not include the starting (baseline) scores separately, so it is not possible from this reporting alone to describe how much, if at all, scores changed over the 10 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 ↗

• NCT00956085 · results posted 10 May 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 12 adults who were given a medication called memantine. All 12 participants completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was measuring changes in obsessive-compulsive symptoms using a well-established rating tool called the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), which scores symptoms on a scale from 0 to 40, where a higher score means more severe symptoms. The main thing the researchers were looking at was how many participants showed a meaningful improvement, which they defined as a reduction of at least 35% in their YBOCS score. The reported data shows that out of the 12 participants, 4 met or exceeded that response threshold — meaning 4 people had their YBOCS score drop by 35% or more during the study. No data was reported for any secondary outcome measures 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 ↗

• NCT02267629 · results posted 10 May 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called Rapastinel (also known as GLYX-13) in people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). A total of 7 people took part, and all 7 completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in OCD symptoms — specifically obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviours — using two rating scales where higher scores mean more severe symptoms. One scale (called the YBOCCS) asked participants to rate their own symptoms over the previous hour, and the other (called the YBOCS) is a commonly used tool for measuring OCD severity overall. The reported data shows that, on the primary measure — the self-rated YBOCCS scale, which runs from 0 to 40 — the average change in scores from before the infusion to 230 minutes afterwards was reported as 13.71 units. The trial did not separately report what the scores were before and after the infusion, so it is not possible from the available data to show exactly where scores started and ended — only that this change figure was recorded. For the secondary measure, the reported data shows that 0 out of the 7 participants met the threshold for a "response," which was defined in this trial as a reduction of at least 35% on the YBOCS 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00464698 · results posted 7 March 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 people in total, all of whom received a medication called duloxetine for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The trial used a stepped-dose design across three periods: participants started on a lower dose (30 mg), then moved to a medium dose (60 mg), and finally a higher dose (120 mg). Not everyone completed every stage — 17 finished the first period, 17 finished the second, and 12 finished the third. The main thing the trial was measuring was change in OCD symptom severity using a standard rating tool called the Y-BOCS (a scored scale where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms). The reported data shows that, on the Y-BOCS scale, the group's average score at the start of the trial was 27.45, and at the last visit it was 20.45. For the additional measures, the reported data shows the following changes from the first visit to the last visit (Week 0 to Week 17): on the depression questionnaire (BDI, scored 0–63, higher meaning more severe), the average score went from 10.30 to 6.95; on the anxiety questionnaire (BAI, also scored 0–63, higher meaning more severe), it went from 10.70 to 6.75; on the quality-of-life questionnaire (QLESQ, scored 16–80, where lower means poorer quality of life), the average score went from 70.14 to 74.55; and on the overall illness severity scale (Clinical Global Impressions, scored 2–14, higher meaning worse), the average went from 4.0 to 2.70. It is important to note that these figures represent averages across all 20 participants as a single group — there was no separate comparison group (such as a placebo group) in this trial's reported data, so the numbers reflect changes over time within the one group only. The reported data does not allow for conclusions about what caused any observed changes. 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 ↗

• NCT01404208 · results posted 27 February 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 142 children and young people — 70 in the D-Cycloserine group and 72 in the sugar pill (placebo) group. The trial was measuring the severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms in participants who were also receiving behaviour-based therapy. Two tools were used to track changes: a detailed symptom checklist called the CY-BOCS (scored 0–40, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms), and a clinician's overall rating of illness severity called the CGI-Severity (scored 0–6, where higher numbers mean more severe illness). The researchers recorded scores at the start of the trial and again after treatment, looking at how much each score changed. The reported data shows that, on the CY-BOCS symptom checklist, the D-Cycloserine group's scores dropped by an average of 10.35 points, while the sugar pill group's scores dropped by an average of 9.40 points — both representing a reduction in reported symptom severity from the start of the trial. For the clinician's overall severity rating (CGI-Severity), the reported data shows the D-Cycloserine group's scores fell by an average of 1.39 points, compared to a fall of 1.20 points in the sugar pill group. In both measures, a negative change means symptoms were rated as less severe after treatment than at the beginning. 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 ↗

• NCT01063348 · results posted 31 October 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this 12-week trial looked at a supplement called N-Acetyl Cysteine (sometimes called NAC) as a possible treatment for pathological skin picking. A total of 66 people took part — 35 in the NAC group and 31 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. By the end of the study, 32 people in the NAC group and 21 in the placebo group had completed all 12 weeks. The main thing being measured was a questionnaire score called the NE-YBOCS, which rates the severity of skin picking urges and behaviours on a scale from 0 to 40 (higher scores mean more severe picking). The reported data shows that at the start of the study, the NAC group averaged 18.8 and the placebo group averaged 17.6. By the final check-in at 12 weeks, the NAC group's average score had fallen to 11.5, while the placebo group's average score had fallen to 14.1. A second questionnaire — the Skin Picking Self-Assessment Scale, scored from 0 to 48 — was also used. The reported data shows both groups started at an average of 28.6. By 12 weeks, the NAC group's average had dropped to 19.4, while the placebo group's average had dropped to 24.5. It is worth noting that scores in both groups went down over the course of the study, not just in the NAC 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 ↗

• NCT01100255 · results posted 27 October 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 15 people in total — 8 in Group A and 7 in Group B. All 15 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring obsessive-compulsive symptoms using a standard questionnaire called the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), which scores symptoms from 0 (no symptoms) to 40 (most severe). The researchers were looking at how many participants showed a meaningful drop in their score — specifically, a reduction of at least 35% — after receiving either a saline (saltwater) infusion or a ketamine infusion. The reported data shows that, when it came to meeting this response threshold, 0 out of 8 participants in the saline infusion group reached that level of score reduction, while 5 out of 7 participants in the ketamine infusion group did. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data beyond this primary measure. 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 ↗

• NCT01654523 · results posted 22 July 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 people who were enrolled in the study, with 19 completing it and 1 not finishing. The trial was measuring the use of a device called an Awareness Enhancement and Monitoring Device, which was being tested in people with trichotillomania — a condition involving repetitive hair pulling. The main thing the researchers were tracking was how scores on a standard hair-pulling severity scale (the Massachusetts General Hospital Hairpulling Scale) changed between the start of the trial and the end of treatment. The reported data shows that the scale used runs from 0 (meaning no hair pulling) to 28 (meaning severe hair pulling), with lower scores indicating less severity. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the average change in score from the beginning of the trial to the end of treatment was approximately 6.7 points. This figure represents the average drop in score across participants — in other words, on average, participants' scores were about 6.7 points lower after treatment compared to where they started. No secondary outcome data appears to have been reported in the submitted results. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group — everyone received the same device — so there was no comparison group included in the reported data. This means the reported numbers describe what was measured within that single 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 ↗

• NCT00316355 · results posted 6 June 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 34 people in total — 15 in a group receiving Traditional Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and 19 in a group receiving Stepped-Care CBT (a version of CBT where the intensity of treatment is adjusted based on how a person is responding). Of those who started treatment, 12 were in the Traditional CBT group and 18 in the Stepped-Care group. By the end of the study, 10 people completed Traditional CBT and 12 completed Stepped-Care CBT. The trial was measuring changes in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptom severity using a standard rating scale, as well as the estimated costs of each treatment approach. The reported data shows that symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), where scores range from 0 to 40 and higher scores mean more severe symptoms. At the start of the study, the Traditional CBT group had an average score of 26.00, and the Stepped-Care group had an average of 24.47. At a later measurement point, the Traditional CBT group's average score was reported as 14.25, and the Stepped-Care group's was 15.16. At the final measurement point, scores were reported as 15.75 for Traditional CBT and 13.87 for Stepped-Care CBT. Regarding costs, the reported data shows that the estimated total treatment cost per person was approximately $5,222.80 for Traditional CBT and $3,121.65 for Stepped-Care CBT. It is worth noting that this was a small study, and some participants did not complete the trial — 5 in the Traditional CBT group and 7 in the Stepped-Care group did not finish. No other outcome data beyond what is described above was reported 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 ↗

• NCT00523718 · results posted 23 March 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called riluzole as a potential treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A total of 38 people took part — 20 received riluzole and 18 received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). Of those, 17 in the riluzole group and all 18 in the placebo group completed the study; three people in the riluzole group did not finish. The main thing the trial was measuring was whether participants showed a meaningful reduction in OCD symptom severity, using a standard rating tool called the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), where higher scores mean more severe symptoms. A "partial response" was defined as a 25% or greater improvement from the starting score. The reported data shows that 5 out of 20 people in the riluzole group met this partial-response threshold, compared with 2 out of 18 in the placebo group. The trial also measured depression, anxiety, and overall illness severity using separate rating scales. For depression (HAM-D), the reported average scores at the end of the study were 11.9 for the riluzole group and 12.5 for the placebo group — both sitting in the "mild" range on that scale. For anxiety (HAM-A), average scores were 14.2 (riluzole) and 14.3 (placebo), both in the mild range. For overall illness severity (CGI), both groups scored approximately 3.9 out of 7, which corresponds roughly to "mildly to moderately ill" on that scale. The reported data shows very similar scores between the two groups across all the secondary measures, and the numbers for the primary measure were based on a relatively small number of participants. No information about side effects or safety findings was included in the structured results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those details are not reported 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 ↗

• NCT00947154 · results posted 16 June 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 12 people who took part in an open-label study (meaning everyone received the same treatment and knew what they were taking) of a medication called aripiprazole for trichotillomania — a condition involving repetitive, compulsive hair pulling. Eleven of the 12 participants completed the study, and one did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in hair-pulling behaviour and severity using two main rating tools: the Mass General Hair Pulling Scale (a self-reported questionnaire scored from 0 to 28, where higher numbers mean more severe hair pulling) and a clinician-rated scale called the Clinical Global Impressions Improvement (CGI-I). The reported data shows that, on the main hair-pulling scale, participants' scores changed by an average of minus 7.8 points over the course of the study — meaning scores were lower at the end than at the start. On a related part of that same scale focused specifically on actual pulling behaviour (scored from 0 to 12), the average change reported was minus 3.9 points. For the clinician-rated improvement scale, the reported data shows that 7 out of the 11 people who completed the study received a rating of "very much improved" or "much improved," which the data also expresses as 64% of completers. It is worth noting that this was a small, open-label trial with only 12 participants and no comparison group, so the numbers reflect a limited and specific set of observations. 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 ↗

• NCT00251303 · results posted 15 July 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 60 young people in total — 30 who received a medicine called riluzole and 30 who received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was looking at obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms in children and teenagers, and it measured two things: how many participants were rated as "much" or "very much" improved by their clinician, and scores on a standard OCD symptom checklist called the CY-BOCS, which runs from 0 to 40 (where a higher number means more severe symptoms). Not everyone finished the study — 22 out of 30 in the riluzole group completed it, compared to 29 out of 30 in the placebo group. The reported data shows that, after 12 weeks, 3 out of 30 participants in the riluzole group were rated as "much" or "very much" improved by their clinician, compared to 4 out of 30 in the placebo group. For the OCD symptom checklist, the reported data shows the riluzole group had an average score of 21.72 at 12 weeks, while the placebo group had an average score of 23.30 — both sitting in a similar range on the 0–40 scale. No other outcome data appears to have been submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov beyond these two measures. It is worth noting that these are the numbers as submitted, and no further detail — such as how scores changed from the start of the trial — was reported in the structured results data available. 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 ↗

• NCT01177969 · results posted 1 July 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved children being assessed for anxiety symptoms. A total of 19 children were enrolled in a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) group and 14 children were placed on a wait-list (a group who waited for treatment rather than receiving it straight away). Of those who started, 16 children in the CBT group and 11 in the wait-list group completed the study. Three children in each group did not complete it. The trial measured the severity of anxiety symptoms in children using two rating scales completed by clinicians (trained health professionals). The reported data shows the following results at the end of the study period. On the primary measure — the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, which runs from 0 to 25 where higher numbers mean more severe anxiety symptoms — the CBT group scored an average of 11.62, while the wait-list group scored an average of 14.04. On the secondary measure — the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule, which runs from 0 to 8 where higher numbers also indicate more severe symptoms — the CBT group scored an average of 3.28, compared to 4.04 in the wait-list group. These are the average scores recorded for each group; the trial data as submitted does not include further details about how these numbers changed from the start of the study. 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 ↗

• NCT00389493 · results posted 25 April 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 100 adults who were already taking a type of antidepressant medication (known as an SRI) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) but were not getting enough relief from it. Participants were divided into three groups: 40 people were given an additional medication called risperidone, 40 people received a structured talking therapy called Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP), and 20 people received a dummy pill (placebo) with no active ingredient. The trial's main goal was to measure changes in OCD symptom severity using a standard rating tool called the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 40 (most severe). The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, all three groups had similar Y-BOCS scores — around 26 for the risperidone group, 27 for the ERP group, and 26 for the placebo group. By the end of the trial, the reported scores were 22.6 for the risperidone group, 13.0 for the ERP group, and 23.1 for the placebo group. The trial also measured several other things. On a scale of social adjustment problems (1–5, higher meaning more problems), all three groups started at around 2.2–2.3 and finished at 2.2, 1.9, and 2.1 respectively. For quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction (14–70, higher meaning better quality of life), starting scores were 52.3, 57.8, and 56.1, and ending scores were 55.1, 70.2, and 62.6. Depression ratings and a scale measuring how strongly participants believed their OCD-related thoughts were real were also recorded, with the reported numbers showing some variation across the groups by the end of the study. 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 ↗

• NCT00775229 · results posted 17 March 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether naltrexone (a medicine already used for other conditions) compared to a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) could affect symptoms of trichotillomania — a condition involving repetitive hair pulling. A total of 51 people took part: 25 in the naltrexone group and 26 in the placebo group. The trial ran for 8 weeks. By the end, 20 people in the naltrexone group and 24 in the placebo group completed the study. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a hair-pulling symptom score called the National Institute of Mental Health Trichotillomania Symptom Severity Scale, which runs from 0 (no symptoms) to 20 (most severe). At the end of the 8 weeks, the naltrexone group had an average score of 7.94, while the placebo group had an average score of 8.73. A second symptom scale — the Massachusetts General Hospital Hairpulling Scale, which runs from 0 to 28 — also measured hair-pulling severity. The reported data shows the naltrexone group averaged 12.21 and the placebo group averaged 13.35 at the end of the study. The trial also monitored liver function (how well the liver was working) throughout, since naltrexone can sometimes affect the liver. The reported data shows that 0% of participants in either group had liver function test results fall outside the normal range at any point during the study. No further detail about the meaning or statistical significance of any of these numbers 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01093976 · results posted 27 September 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medication called dronabinol in people who pull their own hair — a condition sometimes called trichotillomania. A total of 14 people took part, and all 14 completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in hair-pulling behaviour using a self-reported questionnaire called the Massachusetts General Hospital Hairpulling Scale (MGH-HPS). This scale asks people to rate things like urges to pull, how much pulling they actually did, how much control they felt they had, and how distressed they were — all over the previous seven days. Scores on this scale run from 0 to 28, where a higher number means more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that at the end of the study, the group taking dronabinol had an average MGH-HPS total score of 8.71 out of a possible 28. It is worth noting that the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov does not include a starting (baseline) score for comparison, so it is not possible from this data alone to describe how much, if at all, scores may have changed over the course of the trial. There was also only one group in this study — meaning there was no separate comparison or placebo group reported in the submitted results. No secondary outcome measure results were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for this trial, so no further figures can 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 ↗

• NCT01100268 · results posted 15 August 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved just 4 participants, all of whom received a medication called Methylphenidate ER (an extended-release form of a stimulant medication). All 4 participants completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was measuring two things: changes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, and changes in hoarding behaviours, using two separate questionnaire-based rating scales. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — ADHD symptoms, rated on a scale from 0 to 54 where higher scores mean more severe symptoms — all 4 out of 4 participants met the study's definition of a "response," which was a reduction in their score of at least 30%. For the secondary measure — hoarding behaviours, rated on a scale from 0 to 92 where higher scores mean more severe symptoms — 2 out of 4 participants met the study's definition of a "response," which was a reduction in their score of at least 25%. The reported data does not include the actual before-and-after scores for individual participants, only the number who met each response threshold. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 4 people, which means the numbers reported here represent a very limited snapshot. 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 ↗

• NCT00382291 · results posted 12 March 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 56 children or young people in total, split across three groups: 18 received a placebo (inactive treatment) plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT, a talking therapy); 17 received the medication sertraline introduced at a standard pace plus CBT; and 21 received sertraline introduced more slowly plus CBT. The trial was measuring two main things — the severity of "activation" symptoms (things like agitation, restlessness, or unusual energy) that can sometimes occur when starting this type of medication, and the overall severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms. Not everyone finished the study: 14, 10, and 13 participants completed it in each group respectively. The reported data shows that on the activation symptom scale (scored 0 to 7, where 0 means no activation and 7 means extremely severe), the median score for the placebo group was 0.50, while both the standard titration and slow titration sertraline groups had a median score of 2.00. These figures represent the highest activation score each participant reached during the study. For OCD symptom severity, the trial used a scale scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 40 (most severe). The reported average scores at the end of the study were 16.28 for the placebo group, 16.35 for the standard sertraline group, and 17.67 for the slow sertraline group. Standard deviation figures (a measure of how spread out the individual scores were) were not separately reported in the data provided for these outcomes. 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 ↗

• NCT00539513 · results posted 8 March 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a supplement called N-Acetylcysteine (sometimes called NAC) compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Ten people started the trial — five in each group — though not all of them completed it: three people in the NAC group and three in the placebo group finished the full 12 weeks. The trial used two rating scales to measure symptoms: one for OCD (called the Y-BOCS, scored from 0 to 40, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms) and one for depression (called the HAM-D, scored from 0 to 52, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms). The reported data shows that, on the OCD scale at the start of the trial, the NAC group scored an average of 30.3 and the placebo group scored 28.6 — both in the "severe" range. At 12 weeks, the NAC group's average score was 30.6 and the placebo group's was 28.7, meaning the scores were almost unchanged from where they started for both groups. For the depression scale, the NAC group started at an average of 17.3 (in the "moderate" range) and the placebo group started at 8.7 (in the "mild" range). At 12 weeks, the NAC group's depression score had moved to 12.1 and the placebo group's to 7.0. It is important to note that only six people completed this trial in total, which is a very small number. The reported data shows the scores recorded at each time point, but no further statistical analysis results (such as whether any differences between groups were considered meaningful) were 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 ↗

• NCT00864123 · results posted 17 October 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 30 children and young people in total — 15 in each group. All 30 participants completed the trial, with no drop-outs. Everyone received a type of talking therapy called cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), which is a structured approach to changing thought and behaviour patterns. One group also took a medication called D-cycloserine alongside the therapy, while the other group took a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring the severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms over time, using rating scales completed by clinicians. The reported data shows that both groups had their OCD symptoms rated using a scale called the CY-BOCS, where scores range from 0 to 40 and higher numbers mean more severe symptoms. At the start of the trial, the CBT-plus-placebo group scored around 26 and the CBT-plus-D-cycloserine group scored around 24.1. By a mid-point assessment, those scores had dropped to roughly 17.9 and 15.6 respectively, and by the end of the trial they were approximately 11 and 6.8. A separate clinician rating of overall illness severity (scored 1 to 7, where higher means more severe) also showed reductions in both groups over the course of the trial — the placebo group moved from about 5.1 down to 3.0, and the D-cycloserine group moved from about 4.6 down to 2.0. For the checklist used to track possible side effects, the reported data shows a value of zero participants recorded across all time points for both groups, though it is worth noting the way this measure was structured means it reflects individual symptom ratings rather than a single summary score. 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 ↗

• NCT00182000 · results posted 6 July 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 29 people in total — 14 who received a medication called Seromycin (also known as cycloserine) and 15 who received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring the severity of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms after 10 treatment sessions. Not everyone finished the study: 9 out of 14 people in the Seromycin group completed it, compared with 13 out of 15 in the placebo group. The main thing being measured was a standard OCD symptom rating called the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS). This is a scoring tool where clinicians rate how severe a person's OCD symptoms are — scores run from 0 to 40, and a higher number means more severe symptoms. The reported data shows that, after treatment, the Seromycin group had an average score of 10.2, while the placebo group had an average score of 14.5. These are the numbers as submitted; the trial did not provide further statistical details in the publicly reported results. The reported data shows that the secondary outcome measures — which included several other questionnaires looking at depression, anxiety, general wellbeing, and OCD-related beliefs — did not have any results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available to describe. 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 ↗

• NCT00728923 · results posted 2 April 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 9 participants, all of whom received the antibiotic minocycline. All 9 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) using two rating scales: the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), which scores OCD symptoms from 0 to 40 (where higher scores mean more severe symptoms), and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), which scores depressive symptoms from 0 to 50 (again, higher meaning more severe). A meaningful response was defined as a drop of at least 30% on either scale. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure (the YBOCS), 2 out of the 9 participants met or exceeded that 30% reduction threshold in OCD symptoms. For the secondary measure (the HAM-D), the reported data shows that 0 out of the 9 participants met the 30% reduction threshold for depressive symptoms. No other outcome figures, such as average scores before or after treatment, were reported in the data provided to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that this was a very small study — just 9 people — and the results simply describe how many participants crossed a pre-set threshold on each 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 ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full OCD 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.