重新评估苯二氮卓类药物治疗焦虑症的效果- déjà-vu再来一次?

IF 1.7 Q3 PSYCHIATRY BJPsych Advances Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.1192/bja.2022.85
I. Anderson
{"title":"重新评估苯二氮卓类药物治疗焦虑症的效果- déjà-vu再来一次?","authors":"I. Anderson","doi":"10.1192/bja.2022.85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Benzodiazepines have attracted controversy from shortly after their introduction. They have been subject to periodic calls for their use to be re-evaluated on the basis that their risks have been overstated and their benefits underappreciated. Claims made in recent editorials from the International Task Force on Benzodiazepines in support of their wider use are critiqued in this issue. I examine here whether there is a case to change the conclusions of previous reconsiderations of the question.","PeriodicalId":9336,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-evaluating benzodiazepines for anxiety disorders – déjà-vu all over again?\",\"authors\":\"I. Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bja.2022.85\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Benzodiazepines have attracted controversy from shortly after their introduction. They have been subject to periodic calls for their use to be re-evaluated on the basis that their risks have been overstated and their benefits underappreciated. Claims made in recent editorials from the International Task Force on Benzodiazepines in support of their wider use are critiqued in this issue. I examine here whether there is a case to change the conclusions of previous reconsiderations of the question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2022.85\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2022.85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

苯二氮卓类药物在引入后不久就引起了争议。人们定期要求对它们的使用进行重新评估,理由是它们的风险被夸大了,而它们的益处被低估了。本问题对苯二氮卓类药物国际工作队最近的社论中支持其更广泛使用的主张提出了批评。我在这里考察是否有理由改变先前对这个问题重新考虑后得出的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Re-evaluating benzodiazepines for anxiety disorders – déjà-vu all over again?
Benzodiazepines have attracted controversy from shortly after their introduction. They have been subject to periodic calls for their use to be re-evaluated on the basis that their risks have been overstated and their benefits underappreciated. Claims made in recent editorials from the International Task Force on Benzodiazepines in support of their wider use are critiqued in this issue. I examine here whether there is a case to change the conclusions of previous reconsiderations of the question.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Advances
BJPsych Advances PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
期刊最新文献
Psychiatric evidence in UK immigration and asylum cases The role of neurocognitive testing in the assessment of fitness to stand trial Cognitive testing and the hazards of cut-offs The history of the Grange Annual Conference CR193: a framework of knowledge and support for expert witnesses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1