Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book summarizes current knowledge of adverse events from acute dystonia and cardiac emergencies to hepatotoxicity and ocular side effects. Readers will come away with a better understanding of the recognition and detection of adverse events in psychopharmacology, culprit medications, assessment, management, and follow-up treatment.

Background: The aim of this paper was to perform a systematic review and, when feasible, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) which used benzodiazepines (BZD) as a monotherapy versus placebo, antidepressant drugs (AD), or both. Methods: Keyword searches were conducted for identifying RCT comparing BZD and AD, and/or placebo in the treatment of depression, using electronic databases from their inception up to April 2017. We selected reports of RCT in which BZD were compared to AD and/or placebo in the treatment of adult patients with a primary diagnosis of depressive disorder or anxious depression. When feasible, data were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: A total of 38 studies met the criteria for inclusion and were then included in the systematic review. Only 1 study concerned a newer AD, fluvoxamine. For the meta-analysis, we submitted data on response rate from 22 RCT, considering BZD versus placebo (8 comparisons) and BZD versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) (20 comparisons). There was a lack of significant differences as to response rate between BZD and placebo, as well as between BZD and TCA. Analysis of individual studies disclosed that, in more than half of the studies comparing BZD to TCA and/or placebo, BZD were significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as TCA. Conclusions: BZD are a therapeutic option in anxious depression and there are no indications that AD are preferable. There is a pressing need for RCT of adequate methodological quality and follow-up comparing BZD to second-generation AD and placebo in anxious depression.

Roberts and Termuehlen (1) suggest that \"if a writer finds that he or she cannot in good conscience write a positive letter, rather than simply declining the invitation, he or she may talk with the candidate about realistic career goals, the issues of concern, and what the applicant could do to strengthen his or her candidacy.\" The institutional rules may require a certain number of LOR by peers, usually those with whom the candidate never worked, and who hold higher academic rank than the applicant. [...]the committee decides (frequently based on the applicant's recommendation) who the recommenders should be, and it contacts them.

No abstract available Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]