No abstract available.
Amantadine* ; Benztropine* ; Double-Blind Method*

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common side-effect of propofol injection. A remifentanil pretreatment has been reported to decrease the incidence and intensity of pain during a propofol injection and has been suggested to act through a central or peripheral effect. This trial was designed to explore the action site of remifentanil on reducing propofol injection pain, using the venous occlusion technique and a time interval between the applications of remifentanil and propofol. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind study was designed to explore the action site of remifentanil on reducing propofol injection pain in 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery. The peripheral properties were examined using the venous occlusion technique for 30 s while a 1 min time interval between remifentanil and propofol injections was allowed for the central effect. Before the propofol injection, group A was pretreated with remifentanil (0.5 microg/ kg) with a venous occlusion, group B with remifentanil and a 1 min interval, and group C with remifentanil with a venous occlusion and a 1 min interval. Pain severity was assessed using a four-point scale. RESULTS: 40 patients (80%) complained of pain in the placebo group compared with 35 (70%) in group A, 20 (40%) in group B (p < 0.05) and 17 (34%) in group C (p < 0.05). The incidence and severity of propofol injection pain were lower in groups B and C than in group A (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between groups B and C. CONCLUSIONS: The remifentanil mediated analgesic effect occurs mainly through the central effect.
Double-Blind Method ; Humans ; Incidence ; Piperidines ; Propofol

Treatment based on syndrome differentiation is an essential feature of traditional Chinese medical diagnosis. The interventions based on changes of syndrome types in randomized controlled trials are complicated, leading to the difficulty of blind method enforcement. This article described a double-blind method. It could be used in randomized controlled trials under the condition of different syndrome types and different medications. It numbered drugs in two stages, and in two phases to achieve double-blind. This method not only guaranteed investigators and subjects to be in blinded conditions, but also achieved using different medications for patients of different syndromes. It also caused no drug waste. It was scientific and feasible.
Double-Blind Method ; Humans ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Single-Blind Method

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of trimetazidine dihydrochloride as a treatment for chronic tinnitus. METHODS: A total of 97 chronic tinnitus patients were evaluated in this randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After assessing for eligibility, 82 patients were randomly assigned into placebo or trimetazidine groups according to the medication. The trimetazidine group received 20×3 mg/day per oral trimetazidine dihydrochloride and the placebo group received 20×3 mg/day per oral placebo for 3 months. Tinnitus handicap inventory (THI), visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires and audiometric results were used to determine the effectiveness of trimetazidine treatment. RESULTS: The study group comprised 82 tinnitus subjects, 42 (51%) of whom received trimetazidine dihydrochloride and 40 (49%) who received placebo. There was no significant difference between placebo and trimetazidine groups in THI grade and VAS (both pre- and posttreatment scores) (P>0.05) and no significant improvement was observed in subjective loudness score in either group (P>0.05). Additionally there was no significant difference between groups in pre- and posttreatment pure tone hearing thresholds at all measured frequencies (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Trimetazidine dihydrochloride therapy was ineffective for relieving chronic tinnitus.
Double-Blind Method* ; Hearing ; Humans ; Prospective Studies ; Tinnitus* ; Trimetazidine*

This clinical study was designed to determine the clinical and microbiological outcomes and safety of using minocycline loaded polycaprolactone strip for pericoronitis patients. 64 patients showing symptoms and signs of pericoronitis were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria in this double blind study. They were randomly assigned to two groups. 32 patients comprised control group and they received only polycaprolactone films in pericoronal spaces, and another 32 patients comprised experimental group and they received polycaprolactone films loaded with 30% minocycline. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants before beginning the study. At the initial visit, gingival index(GI), papillary bleeding index(PBI), amount of gingival crevicular fluid(GCF) were recorded, and microbiological sampling was done. Then, loaded or unloaded polycaprolactone film was inserted into the pericoronal spaces. No drug was prescribed excepting this film. After one week, clinical and microbiological exam was repeated. Presence of any side effects or inconveniences were checked. Chi-square test and t-test was performed to compare outcomes. At baseline, there were no significant differences in all the criteria between experimental group and control group. Experimental group showed significant improvement compared with control group both in GI(p<0.01) and PBI(p<0.01). The amount of GCF of the experimental group was significantly decreased compared with the control group(p<0.01) and baseline(p<0.01). In microbiological study, percentage of motile rod was prominently decreased in the experimental group. Also, aerobic(p<0.001), anaerobic(p<0.001) and black pigmented(p<0.01) bacteria were significantly decreased from the baseline. Furthermore, no side effects or inconveniences was reported in the experimental group. From this study, it was concluded that insertion of polycaprolactone film with 30% minocycline into the pericoronal spaces would be effective and safe treatment for pericoronitis.
Bacteria ; Double-Blind Method ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Minocycline* ; Pericoronitis*

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of Vibramycin (Doxycycline) to acne vulgaris, a double-blind study was performed in forty three patients of ance vulgaris. The patients were classified as to the severity of the disease before the treatment according to Wand, et al. and the degree of the effectiveness was evaluated weekly by Clinical improvement. The results obtained were as follows: Among 14 patients who received a 100mg capsule orally per day for four weeks, 12 cases (85.7%) showed excellent improvement, whereas in the placebo group only 4 out of 12 patients (33.3%) showed good responses. Statistical analysis of the data revealed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) in effectiveness between the Vibramycin group (100mg) and the placebo group, and that at the end of the first week of the treatment there was no significant improvement, but at the end of the third week there was a highly significant improvement, p_value between the first-week response and the third-week response among the patients in administering 100mg of Vibramycin being less than 0.01. It was noted that 24 out of 43 patients(55.8%) had a distint familial history of the disease, suggesting that there might be a predisposing factor involved in the manifestation of acne vulgris. It is concluded from this study that Vibramycin, when administered in dose of 100mg per day for more than three weeks, is effective in improving the acne vulgaris.
Acne Vulgaris* ; Causality ; Double-Blind Method ; Doxycycline* ; Humans

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study compared the efficacy of once-daily administration of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day with multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 203 patients with ulcerative colitis in remission received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily or time-dependent (controlled-release) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients without rectal bleeding. RESULTS: The proportion of patients without rectal bleeding during the 48-week treatment period in the per protocol set was 84.8% (84/99) in the multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day group and 78.0% (78/100) in the controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day group. The difference between the 2 treatment groups was 6.8% (two-sided 95% confidence interval, −3.9% to 17.6%). The noninferiority margin of −10% was met in the comparison of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day. Multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily demonstrated consistent efficacy in all subgroups. There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups with regard to safety. CONCLUSIONS: A once-daily dose of 2 multimatrix mesalazine tablets (2.4 g) was not inferior to controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily in maintaining absence of rectal bleeding in ulcerative colitis.
Colitis, Ulcerative* ; Double-Blind Method* ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Mesalamine* ; Tablets ; Ulcer*

In order to evaluate the the effectiveness of low-dose longterm Vibramycin (Doxycycline) treatment on Acne Vulgaris, a double-blind study was performed on fifty two patients with Acne Vulgaris. The patients were classified as to the severi.ty of their disease before treatment according to Wand. et al. The degree of the effcctiveness of the treatment was evaluated every other week for 12 weeks on the grounds of clinical improvement. The therapeutic results obtaincd were as follovs: araong the 19 patients who received 50 mg per day for 12 weeks, 13 cases (72.2%) showed excellent improverrent after 6 weeks; whereas in thc placebo group only 4 out of 15 patients (26. 7%) showed good response, Statistical analysis of the data revealed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in effectiveness between the Vibrarzycin 50mg per day group and the placebo group. Among the 19 patient who received a 100mg capsile orally per day for 4 weeks (subsequently this group received 50mg per day for 8 weeks) 13 cases.(68.4%) showed excellent improvement in 4 weeks; whereas in the placebo group only 4 cases(26, 7%) showed good respnnse Statistical analysis of this data revealed that there was a significant difference (p<0. 05) in efectivencess the Vibramycin 100mg per day group and the placebo group, It was noted that 44 out of 52 patients (83%) had a distinct family history of the disease, suggesting that there might be a predisposing hereditary factor involvcd in the manifestation of Acne Vulgaris It is concluded f rom this study that Vibramycin, when administrated in a dose of 50mg per day for more than 6 weeks is effective in the treatment of Acne Vulgaris.
Acne Vulgaris* ; Double-Blind Method* ; Doxycycline* ; Dronabinol ; Humans

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of pain associated with an intravenous injection of propofol, and different methods have been used in an attempt to minimize the incidence and severity of this pain. This study compared the effect of a ketamine pretreatment with that of a remifentanil pretreatment on the pain associated with a propofol injection. METHODS: 225 ASA physical status 1-2 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled into this randomized double blind study. The patients received 2 ml of saline (n = 45), 2 ml of ketamine 20 mg (n = 45), 2 ml of remifentanil 0.01 mg (n = 45), or 2 ml of remifentanil 0.02 mg (n = 45) or 2 ml of remifentanil 0.03 mg (n = 45) 30 seconds prior to administering 2 mg/kg of 1% propofol. An anesthesiologist who was blinded to the study asked the patients to evaluate the pain using a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, severe). RESULTS: The remifentanil 0.02 mg, remifentanil 0.03 mg and ketamine groups showed significantly less frequent and intense pain than the saline group (P < 0.05). The remifentanil 0.02 mg and 0.03 mg provided as much pain relief as ketamine (P > 0.05), but the remifentanil 0.01 mg did not (P < 0.05). There was a similar incidence of injection pain in the remifentanil 0.02 mg and remifentanil 0.03 mg groups. CONCLUSIONS: An intravenous remifentanil 0.02 mg or remifentanil 0.03 mg pretreatment is as effective in alleviating the pain associated with a propofol injection as a intravenous ketamine pretreatment. The remifentanil 0.03 mg pretreatment had a similar analgesic effect relative to the remifentanil 0.02 mg pretreatment.
Adult ; Double-Blind Method ; Humans ; Incidence ; Injections, Intravenous ; Ketamine* ; Propofol*

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of pain associated with an intravenous injection of propofol, and different methods have been used in an attempt to minimize the incidence and severity of this pain. This study compared the effect of a ketamine pretreatment with that of a remifentanil pretreatment on the pain associated with a propofol injection. METHODS: 225 ASA physical status 1-2 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled into this randomized double blind study. The patients received 2 ml of saline (n = 45), 2 ml of ketamine 20 mg (n = 45), 2 ml of remifentanil 0.01 mg (n = 45), or 2 ml of remifentanil 0.02 mg (n = 45) or 2 ml of remifentanil 0.03 mg (n = 45) 30 seconds prior to administering 2 mg/kg of 1% propofol. An anesthesiologist who was blinded to the study asked the patients to evaluate the pain using a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, severe). RESULTS: The remifentanil 0.02 mg, remifentanil 0.03 mg and ketamine groups showed significantly less frequent and intense pain than the saline group (P < 0.05). The remifentanil 0.02 mg and 0.03 mg provided as much pain relief as ketamine (P > 0.05), but the remifentanil 0.01 mg did not (P < 0.05). There was a similar incidence of injection pain in the remifentanil 0.02 mg and remifentanil 0.03 mg groups. CONCLUSIONS: An intravenous remifentanil 0.02 mg or remifentanil 0.03 mg pretreatment is as effective in alleviating the pain associated with a propofol injection as a intravenous ketamine pretreatment. The remifentanil 0.03 mg pretreatment had a similar analgesic effect relative to the remifentanil 0.02 mg pretreatment.
Adult ; Double-Blind Method ; Humans ; Incidence ; Injections, Intravenous ; Ketamine* ; Propofol*