Sinusitis FAQ

NIH update

Question:

Hi everyone, Greg and others have asked for an update of the NIH Consensus Statement.  I sent email to NIMH requesting new information on panic disorder.  I received a reply from Joan Abell, Chief, Information Resources and Inquiries Branch, who said that there is no more current information available at present.  However, NIMH is sponsoring the 7th Annual Decade of the Brain Lecture Series, wich includes a session on anxiety disorders.  Summaries may be posted on the NIMH web site http://www.nimh.gov/.  Joan recommended the paper  "Panic Disorder: Efficacy of Current Treatments" by James C. Ballenger, M.D. as a source for more recent information. Greg recently posted citations of other review papers that could be the basis for a replacement for the NIH Consensus Statment.  To make this a group project and avoid copyright problems, I’m asking for volunteers to choose one of the papers and write a summary.  You can order article reprints from your local public library for little or no cost.  Email the summaries to me and I will post them with the monthly FAQ.  I’ve included a list of review papers below: Practical approaches to the treatment of panic disorder.  Journal of Clinical Psychiatry  1996 Jan.  Vol 57, No. 1.  Pages 45-52. Weinstein-R-S.  Panic disorder.  American Family Physician.  1995 Nov 15. Vol. 52, No. 7.  Pages 2055-2063,  2067-2068. Rosenbaum JF.  Pollock RA.  Otto MW.  Pollack MH.  Integrated treatment of panic disorder. [Review]  Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic.  Vol. 59, No. 2 Supp A: Pages A4-A26, 1995 Spring. Johnson MR.  Lydiard RB.  Ballenger JC., Panic disorder:  Pathophysiology and drug treatment. [Review]  Drugs.  Vol. 49, No. 3: Pages 328-344, 1995 Mar. Ballenger, JC.  Panic disorder:  Efficacy of current treatments. Psychopharmacology Bulletin Vol. 29: Pages 477-486, 1993. Wish you all well, Jim

Response:

[ . . . ] I am, however, very concerned by any attempt to replace the Consensus study in this manner. The papers both you and Greg quoted are bound to contain contradictory findings and opinions so what we will end up with is anything *but* a consensus.

Right — my feeling from the start was that the consensus needs to be updated, specifically, in the recent developments of new therapies. I suppose it wouldn’t be unreasonable for us to have a *third* FAQ, a sort of "recent research" document, which could well be compiled in the manner you suggest, but I really don’t feel it is safe to have this *instead* of the NIH report.

I think a summary of representative articles could be helpful to people who are uncertain where to begin when choosing among therapy options.  This sort of document, if compiled by volunteers, would have to be an uncritical presentation of all various conflicting points of view, leaving the reader to use their own judgement ultimately.  It would therefore not be so much a guide as a sort of index of what’s available, with references for further reading, etc. If this manages to become a sort of group project I’d be happy to help with tracking down articles & summarizing them. Greg — blah

Response:

<words deleted to save space I think a summary of representative articles could be helpful to people who are uncertain where to begin when choosing among therapy options.  This sort of document, if compiled by volunteers, would have to be an uncritical presentation of all various conflicting points of view, leaving the reader to use their own judgement ultimately.  It would therefore not be so much a guide as a sort of index of what’s available, with references for further reading, etc.

Surely this is the job of the FAQ? If so, shouldn’t this project be rolled into updating it? If this manages to become a sort of group project I’d be happy to help with tracking down articles & summarizing them.

Needless to say, I’m more than willing to help too, if there is a general agreement to go on with this, subject to my being able to get my paws on the relevant papers. — Gary Cooper

Response:

<snipped to save space Greg recently posted citations of other review papers that could be the basis for a replacement for the NIH Consensus Statment.  To make this a group project and avoid copyright problems, I’m asking for volunteers to choose one of the papers and write a summary.  You can order article reprints from your local public library for little or no cost.  Email the summaries to me and I will post them with the monthly FAQ.  I’ve included a list of review papers below:

Thank you for your excellent work in maintaining the FAQ, Jim and for your having contacted the NIMH. I am, however, very concerned by any attempt to replace the Consensus study in this manner. The papers both you and Greg quoted are bound to contain contradictory findings and opinions so what we will end up with is anything *but* a consensus. My personal feeling is that, however out of date the NIH statement might be, it *is* an impartial consensus and shouldn’t be replaced until an impartial authoritative alternative can be found. I suppose it wouldn’t be unreasonable for us to have a *third* FAQ, a sort of "recent research" document, which could well be compiled in the manner you suggest, but I really don’t feel it is safe to have this *instead* of the NIH report. Any other views? — Gary Cooper

Response:

Filed under: Pathophysiology

Related Posts

• Hulda's zapper and root canals
• possible treatment for stress/MS link
• ~ Food Induced Cushings ~
• What's New at the JAMA Migraine Information Center
• a neuroscientific basis for using benzos in panic disorder
• paging Teri Roberts
• Help Gout Treatment
• Raynaud's Phenomenon
• chilblaines
• relationship between CHF and Lactic acid