Peer review double-blind reviews

Most efficacy trials with reboxetine have so far only been published in review articles ( 178). Most of these articles did not have peer review and do not contain the full details concerning methodology or results. This fact limits the ability to accurately determine its relative efficacy and tolerability. In short-term (4 to 8 weeks), placebo-controlled clinical trials, reboxetine produced a response (defined as at least a 50% reduction in severity scores) in 56% to 74% of patients. These results were statistically superior to placebo in most studies. Reboxetine was also found to be as effective as imipramine and desipramine in four double-blind, randomized, active-controlled (but not placebo-controlled) studies involving more than 800 outpatients or inpatients with major depression. Reboxetine produced equivalent antidepressant response rates compared with fluoxetine in two clinical trials, one of which was also placebo-controlled. However, reboxetine was reported to have improved social motivation and behavior more than fluoxetine as assessed by the newly developed Social Adaptation Self-Evaluation Scale. In all of the studies, reboxetine had a similar time (i.e., 2 to 3 weeks) to onset of the antidepressant efficacy as do other antidepressants. 

When a manuscript is submitted for consideration, peer review provides the editor with advice on whether to accept the manuscript for publication. Reviewers also provide suggestions for improving the manuscript. The decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication rests solely with the editor. Reviewers provide additional expertise and have perspectives that may complement that of the editor. Customarily, peer review is anonymous the identities of reviewers are not revealed by editors. Some journals also hold authors names and affiliations in confidence, a double-blind review approach. Occasionally, reviewers request... 

Although information about dietary supplements is widely available on the Internet, it is usually provided by product distributors, and is designed to sell products rather than to provide objective information about product efficacy and toxicity. Even reviews of dietary supplements in journals, newsletters, books, and electronic databases can be biased or incorrect. In compiling information to be included in Herbal Products Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology, Second Edition, emphasis was placed on the use of original studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Older studies, as well as more current literature, were utilized for completeness, with an emphasis on newer literature and double-blind, controlled trials. Where appropriate, information was obtained... 

As in university or academic-based drug information centers, published literature used to develop an answer to a drug information inquiry can be divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Primary sources are the most desirable type of data to use and can be subdivided, depending on the type of data collected. Information gleaned from randomized, prospective, double-blind trials result in data more useful than just one case report on a given topic. Ideally, the most rigorous data available are used however, case reports and abstracts may be the only available literature published. Peer-reviewed, well-respected journals should be used. 

Research and synthesis articles are subject to rigorous double-blind multiple academic peer review policy analysis articles are also fully peer-reviewed. 

An important characteristic that appears common to the products listed in Table 2 is the apparent lack of peer-reviewed evidence from any published research to indicate what, if any, physiological/behavioral responses these compounds evoke in double-blind controlled trials and the type of bioassays employed to identify and quantify the active materials. However, considerable personal testimonials to the effectiveness of the products are available in their print media advertisements and World Wide Websites. 

The defining trait of primary scientific journals is the process of peer review. Authors submit a paper to the editor of a journal, who in turn sends the manuscript to selected reviewers, or referees, who evaluate the paper for originality, accuracy, relevance, and value to the scientific community. The reviewers may approve the paper for publication as-is, or they may reject it outright, but commonly they request revisions, after which it is accepted. In order to reduce bias, some journals keep the identity of reviewers and authors confidential—this is called double-blind peer review. Others only keep the identity of the reviewers confidential. 

---