coronary heart disease (CHD). The criteria used consisted of three categories, where Category 1 consisted of the strongest evidence, that is, treatments have been shown to be superior to a placebo or to another plausible treatment in at least two studies. Category 2 consisted of treatments supported by at least one controlled study. Category 3 consisted of treatments that have less rigorous support such as case-control studies (e.g., correlational or cross-sectional studies), and non-controlled studies (eg. pre- treatment of one group only, case study data, and widely practised traditional methods not yet investigated in a controlled trial). They found that treatments with the best evidence for depression consisted of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapies. These types of treatments had numerous robust controlled trials showing efficacy and so were believed to be beneficial treatments of depression for people with CHD. Based on the quality of the evidence, they also concluded that exercise programs were beneficial as was treatment involving medicating with the herb St However, they found little evidence that therapies like acupuncture, fatty John’s Wort. acids therapy, and other complimentary therapies were beneficial for people with CHD who were also depressed. Truswell (2001) described levels of evidence criteria developed by the National Health and Medical Research Committee (NHMRC) in Australia and applied this system to treatment research in the nutrition area for diseases like CHD. The system consists of seven grades where Grade 1 is the highest level of evidence and Grade 7 the lowest. Grade 1 consisted of evidence that arises from a systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Grade 2 consisted of evidence arising from a well designed RCT study. Grade 3 consisted of evidence arising from a well controlled cohort study (e,g., non-randomized controlled longitudinal treatment study). Grade 4 consisted of evidence arising from case-control studies (e.g., cross sectional data) or single-case experimental studies. Grade 5 consisted of evidence arising from studies with an historical control (e.g., retrospective data).
coronary heart disease (CHD). The criteria used consisted of three categories, where Category 1 consisted of the strongest evidence, that is, treatments have been shown to be superior to a placebo or to another plausible treatment in at least two studies. Category 2 consisted of treatments supported by at least one controlled study. Category 3 consisted of treatments that have less rigorous support such as case-control studies (e.g., correlational or cross-sectional studies), and non-controlled studies (eg. pre- treatment of one group only, case study data, and widely practised traditional methods not yet investigated in a controlled trial). They found that treatments with the best evidence for depression consisted of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapies. These types of treatments had numerous robust controlled trials showing efficacy and so were believed to be beneficial treatments of depression for people with CHD. Based on the quality of the evidence, they also concluded that exercise programs were beneficial as was treatment involving medicating with the herb St John’s Wort. However, they found little evidence that therapies like acupuncture, fatty acids therapy, and other complimentary therapies were beneficial for people with CHD who were also depressed. Truswell (2001) described levels of evidence criteria developed by the National Health and Medical Research Committee (NHMRC) in Australia and applied this system to treatment research in the nutrition area for diseases like CHD. The system consists of seven grades where Grade 1 is the highest level of evidence and Grade 7 the lowest. Grade 1 consisted of evidence that arises from a systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Grade 2 consisted of evidence arising from a well designed RCT study. Grade 3 consisted of evidence arising from a well controlled cohort study (e,g., non-randomized controlled longitudinal treatment study). Grade 4 consisted of evidence arising from case-control studies (e.g., cross sectional data) or single-case experimental studies. Grade 5 consisted of evidence arising from studies with an historical control (e.g., retrospective data).