Psychology Reader

Treatment Response and Durability in Panic Disorder

David H. Barlow, Jack M. Gorman, M. Katherine Shear, and Scott W. Woods · 2000 · JAMA

Role
Landmark empirical study · Methodological contribution
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
8 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Do We Know When Psychotherapy Helps—or Harms?

Follow the changing denominators across acute treatment, maintenance and follow-up, using the corrections for affected details.

Why you’re reading it. Judge durability without equating responder-only comparisons with the original randomized comparison.

A question to consider. If relapse is less frequent among one group’s earlier responders, what information about selection, discontinuation and missing data is needed before claiming a lasting advantage?

Why this reading

A treatment’s apparent advantage can depend on when outcomes are measured and who remains under observation. This trial compares CBT, medication, their combination and placebo conditions across acute treatment, maintenance and follow-up after discontinuation.

Before you read

Response is a defined improvement criterion, not necessarily complete recovery. An intention-to-treat analysis aims to retain the original assignment groups; a responder-only analysis asks a different question. Missing outcomes and treatments received outside the trial affect both.

Read for

  1. Follow the participant flow, exclusions after randomization and the groups entering each later phase.
  2. Compare outcome measures and analysis populations before interpreting a difference in response or relapse.

Consider afterwards

  1. Why can a comparison among earlier responders differ from a comparison based on the original assignment groups?
  2. What additional design would help distinguish lasting treatment effects from the consequences of a particular discontinuation procedure?

Editorial context

The study analyzed 312 of 326 randomized adults in specialist clinics and restricted agoraphobic avoidance. Later phases selected responders; medication tapering and missing-data assumptions matter. This historical comparison is not a current prescribing recommendation. The publisher’s main text retains errors addressed by two November 2000 notices: laboratory units, allocation numbers and dose-escalation timing. Both correction records are linked below and describe the same changes.