|
|
|
Pg. 4 |
<Previous Page
First Page^ Next Page> |
 Bioelectromagnetic
Medicine – Chapter 44 Unabridged Version
Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia,
Cognitive Dysfunction, and Pain: A Review and Meta-Analyses
Daniel L. Kirsch, Ph.D., D.A.A.P.M., F.A.I.S. and Ray B. Smith, Ph.D.
|
|
Smith (13) |
40 min Daily,
M-F, 15
Days |
Inpatient
Alcoholics |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Single Blind |
POMS |
|
Smith (11) |
45 min Daily,
21 Days |
ADHD |
No |
No |
No |
Open
Clinical |
IPAT Depression
Scale |
(a)
Zung’s Self Rating Depression
Scale
(b)
Profile of Mood States
(c)
Multiple Affect Adjective Check
List
(d)
Montgomery and Asberg
Depression Rating Scale
Table 2.
Analysis of studies shown in Table 1
|
|
Number of Patients |
|
|
|
|
Author |
CES |
Controls |
Total |
Statistic Reported |
Results |
Zr
Score (a) |
|
Bianco (14) |
11 |
18 |
29 |
% Improvement |
80% (b) |
1.099 |
|
Feighner (82) |
23 |
23 |
23 |
% Improvement Zung SRDS |
17% |
.172 |
|
% Improvement, Clinical Rating
Scale |
26% |
.266 |
|
Frankel (17) |
17 |
17 |
17 |
% Improvement |
0% |
.000 |
|
Hearst (83) |
14 |
14 |
28 |
% Improvement |
73% |
.929 |
|
Krupitsky (84) |
10 |
10 |
20 |
% Improvement, Zung SRDS |
23% |
.234 |
|
% Improvement, MMPI |
32% |
.332 |
|
Levitt (85) |
5 |
6 |
11 |
% Improvement |
25% |
.255 |
|
Smith (86) |
10 |
11 |
21 |
% Improvement |
30% |
.310 |
|
Marshall (24) |
20 |
20 |
40 |
% Improvement |
0% |
.000 |
|
Matteson (16) |
32 |
22 |
54 |
% Improvement |
34% |
.354 |
|
Tyers (64) |
20 |
|
20 |
% Improvement |
35% |
.365 |
|
Tyers (65) |
60 |
|
60 |
% Improvement |
26% |
.266 |
|
Lichtbroun (43) |
40 |
20 |
60 |
% Improvement |
31% |
.321 |
|
Kirsch (7) |
69 |
|
69 |
Average % Improvement |
71% |
.887 |
|
May (87) |
15 |
|
15 |
% Improvement, Beck DI |
76% |
.996 |
|
% Improvement, MAACL |
77% |
1.02 |
|
Moore (42) |
17 |
17 |
17 |
% Improvement, Clinical Ass. |
59% |
.678 |
|
% Improvement, Self Rated |
17% |
.172 |
|
% Improvement, Beck DI |
5% |
.050 |
|
Passini (25) |
30 |
30 |
60 |
% Improvement |
24% |
.245 |
|
Phillip (26) |
10 |
11 |
21 |
% Improvement |
0% |
.000 |
|
Rosenthal (88) |
11 |
11 |
22 |
% Improvement, Clin Rating |
64% |
.758 |
|
% Improvement, Zung SRDS |
21% |
.213 |
|
Rosenthal (12) |
9 |
|
9 |
% Improvement, Clin Rating |
38% |
.400 |
|
% Improvement, Zung SRDS |
29% |
.299 |
|
Rosenthal (18) |
12 |
6 |
18 |
% Improvement, Clin Rating |
56% |
.633 |
|
% Improvement, Zung SRDS |
37% |
.388 |
|
Shealy (89) |
34 |
14 |
48 |
% Improvement |
50% |
.549 |
|
Smith (13) |
36 |
36 |
72 |
% Improvement |
67% |
..881 |
|
Smith (11) |
23 |
|
23 |
% Improvement |
32% |
.332 |
|
Total |
826 |
306 |
1075 |
Mean
Mean Effect Size
N Weighted Effect Size
Heterogeneity X2
= 3.11,
Df= 31.
Standard Error of the Mean =
0.31 |
38% |
.437
r = .41
r = .53
n.s. |
(a)
From Fisher Tables of r to zr
transformation (Edwards, 1964)
(b)
Percent change equals r, from
the binomial effect size distribution From Wolf, 1986, p33.
|
|
|
|
|
|
<Previous Page
First Page^ Next Page>
Bioelectromagnetic Medicine• 2004 |
Used with permission of Electromedical Products
International, Inc.
|
