***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE To address the lack of a simple and st and ardized instrument to assess overall panic disorder severity , the authors developed a scale for the measurement of panic disorder severity . METHOD Ten independent evaluators used the seven-item Panic Disorder Severity Scale to assess 186 patients with principal DSM-III-R diagnoses of panic disorder ( with no or mild agoraphobia ) who were participating in the Multicenter Collaborative Treatment Study of Panic Disorder . In addition , 89 of these patients were reevaluated with the same scale after short-term treatment . A subset of 24 patients underwent two independent assessment s to establish interrater reliability . Internal consistency , convergent and discriminant validity , and sensitivity to change were also determined . RESULTS The Panic Disorder Severity Scale was associated with excellent interrater reliability , moderate internal consistency , and favorable levels of validity and sensitivity to change . Individual items showed good convergent and discriminant validity . Analysis suggested a two-factor model fit the data best . CONCLUSIONS The Panic Disorder Severity Scale is a simple , efficient way for clinicians to rate severity in patients with established diagnoses of panic disorder . However , further research with more diverse groups of panic disorder patients and with a broader range of convergent and discriminant validity measures is needed OBJECTIVE Recent studies have suggested that most patients treated for panic disorder receive forms of psychotherapy other than cognitive behavior therapy , even though there is little information about the efficacy of such treatments or how they compare to proven active treatments . The authors compared one of these other forms , emotion-focused psychotherapy ( given to 30 patients with panic disorder ) , to results obtained with recommended st and ard treatment ( either cognitive behavior therapy [ N=36 ] or imipramine [ N=22 ] ) . The authors also compared emotion-focused psychotherapy to results obtained in subjects given pill placebo ( N=24 ) . METHOD Subjects met DSM-IV criteria for panic disorder with no more than mild agoraphobia . Treatment consisted of approximately 3 months of weekly visits followed by 6 monthly maintenance visits . Assessment s were conducted after each treatment phase and at a follow-up visit after 6 months of no treatment . RESULTS Emotion-focused psychotherapy  was less effective for symptoms of panic disorder than treatment with either cognitive behavior therapy or imipramine ; results obtained with emotion-focused psychotherapy after the acute and maintenance phases were similar to those seen with placebo .  Treatment expectations were not different among the different groups . Patients receiving emotion-focused psychotherapy had the highest completion rate . CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that emotion-focused psychotherapy ( a supportive form of psychotherapy ) has low efficacy for the treatment of panic disorder . However , emotion-focused psychotherapy may be superior to medical management in helping patients stay in treatment CONTEXT Panic disorder ( PD ) may be treated with drugs , psychosocial intervention , or both , but the relative and combined efficacies have not been evaluated in an unbiased fashion . OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether drug and psychosocial therapies for PD are each more effective than placebo , whether one treatment is more effective than the other , and whether combined therapy is more effective than either therapy alone . DESIGN AND SETTING R and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 4 anxiety research clinics from May 1991 to April 1998 . PATIENTS A total of 312 patients with PD were included in the analysis . INTERVENTIONS Patients were r and omly assigned to receive imipramine , up to 300 mg/d , only ( n=83 ) ; cognitive-behavioral therapy ( CBT ) only ( n=77 ) ; placebo only ( n=24 ) ; CBT plus imipramine ( n=65 ) ; or CBT plus placebo ( n=63 ) . Patients were treated weekly for 3 months ( acute phase ) ; responders were then seen monthly for 6 months ( maintenance phase ) and then followed up for 6 months after treatment discontinuation . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Treatment response based on the Panic Disorder Severity Scale ( PDSS ) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale ( CGI ) by treatment group . RESULTS Both imipramine and CBT were significantly superior to placebo for the acute treatment phase as assessed by the PDSS ( response rates for the intent-to-treat [ ITT ] analysis , 45.8 % , 48.7 % , and 21.7 % ; P=.05 and P=.03 , respectively ) , but were not significantly different for the CGI ( 48 . 2 % , 53.9 % , and 37.5 % , respectively ) . After 6 months of maintenance , imipramine and CBT were significantly more effective than placebo for both the PDSS ( response rates , 37.8 % , 39.5 % , and 13.0 % , respectively ; P=.02 for both ) and the CGI ( 37.8 % , 42.1 % , and 13.0 % , respectively ) . Among responders , imipramine produced a response of higher quality . The acute response rate for the combined treatment was 60.3 % for the PDSS and 64.1 % for the CGI ; neither was significantly different from the other groups . The 6-month maintenance response rate for combined therapy was 57.1 % for the PDSS ( P=.04 vs CBT alone and P=.03 vs imipramine alone ) and 56.3 % for the CGI ( P=.03 vs imipramine alone ) , but not significantly better than CBT plus placebo in either analysis . Six months after treatment discontinuation , in the ITT analysis CGI response rates were 41.0 % for CBT plus placebo , 31.9 % for CBT alone , 19.7 % for imipramine alone , 13 % for placebo , and 26.3 % for CBT combined with imipramine . CONCLUSIONS Combining imipramine and CBT appeared to confer limited advantage acutely but more substantial advantage by the end of maintenance . Each treatment worked well immediately following treatment and during maintenance ; CBT appeared durable in follow-up . JAMA . 2000;283:2529 - OBJECTIVE The purpose of this comparative outcome study was to investigate whether the effects of exposure in vivo treatment for panic disorder with agoraphobia could be enhanced by adding interventions specifically for panic attacks before the start of exposure treatment . The additional effect of two types of treatment for panic attacks -- pharmacological ( fluvoxamine ) and psychological ( repeated hyperventilation provocations and respiratory training)--was examined . Thus , the combined treatment of panic interventions with exposure in vivo could be compared to exposure in vivo alone . METHOD Ninety-six patients were r and omly assigned to four treatment conditions : double-blind , placebo-controlled fluvoxamine followed by exposure in vivo , psychological panic management followed by exposure , and exposure in vivo alone . Outcome was assessed by self-report measures , a st and ardized multitask behavioral avoidance test , and continuous monitoring of panic attacks .  Seventy-six patients completed the study . RESULTS All four treatments were effective and result ed in a significant decrease of agoraphobic avoidance . Moreover , the combination of fluvoxamine and exposure in vivo demonstrated efficacy superior to that of the other treatments and had twice as large an effect size ( difference between pre- and posttreatment scores ) on self-reported agoraphobic avoidance . The other treatments did not differ among each other in effectiveness . CONCLUSIONS Results of the study indicate that the short-term outcome of exposure in vivo treatment can be enhanced by adding fluvoxamine treatment . Psychological panic management combined with exposure was not superior to exposure alone of equal duration 
    Output:
    
Conclusion The act of taking a pill placebo may enhance the placebo effect already contained in the effective psychotherapeutic intervention during the acute phase treatment .
Theoretically this is an argument against the recently cl aim ed null hypothesis of placebo effect in general and clinical ly it may point to some further room for enhancing the psychotherapeutic approach for panic disorder