A controlled trial of light therapy for the treatment of pediatric seasonal affective disorder.
A controlled trial of light therapy for the treatment of pediatric seasonal affective disorder.
复制标题
光疗法治疗小儿季节性情感障碍的对照试验。
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-199706000-00019
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rosenthal,NE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Swedo,SE;Allen,AJ;Glod,CA;Clark,CH;Teicher,MH;Richter,D;Hoffman,C;Hamburger,SD;Dow,S;Brown,C;Rosenthal,NE
目的：评价光疗法治疗小儿季节性情感障碍（SAD）的疗效。方法：来自两个不同地点的 28 名儿童（7 至 17 岁）被纳入一项双盲、安慰剂对照、强光治疗交叉试验。受试者最初进入为期一周的基线期，在此期间他们每天戴一小时墨镜。然后，他们被随机分配接受为期 1 周的积极治疗（1 小时强光治疗加 2 小时黎明模拟）或安慰剂（1 小时透明护目镜加 5 分钟低强度黎明模拟）。治疗阶段之后是持续 1 至 2 周的第二个墨镜阶段。在这个阶段之后，孩子们接受了替代治疗。使用汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表结构化访谈指南季节性情感障碍版本 (SIGH-SAD) 的家长和儿童版本来测量反应。结果：数据被分析为相对于基线的变化。与安慰剂相比，光疗期间 SIGH-SAD-P 总抑郁评分较基线显着下降（单向方差分析，p = .009），并且安慰剂和对照阶段之间没有发现差异。在积极治疗期间，非典型和典型抑郁症的分项评分也显着下降（分别为 p = 0.004 和 0.028）。 SIGH-SAD-C 也出现了类似的趋势，但这并未达到显着性。研究结束时，78% 的受访家长和 80% 的受访儿童将光疗视为孩子“感觉最好”的阶段。 结论：光疗似乎是治疗儿科 SAD 的有效方法。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of light therapy for the treatment of pediatric seasonal affective disorder (SAD). METHOD: 28 children (aged 7 to 17 years) at two geographically distinct sites were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of bright-light treatment. Subjects initially entered a week-long baseline period during which they wore dark glasses for an hour a day. They were then randomly assigned to receive either active treatment (1 hour of bright-light therapy plus 2 hours of dawn simulation) or placebo (1 hour of clear goggles plus 5 minutes of low-intensity dawn simulation) for 1 week. The treatment phase was followed by a second dark-glasses phase lasting 1 to 2 weeks. After this phase, the children received the alternate treatment. Response was measured using the parent and child versions of the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders version (SIGH-SAD). RESULTS: Data were analyzed as change from baseline. SIGH-SAD-P total depression scores were significantly decreased from baseline during light therapy compared with placebo (one-way analysis of variance, p = .009), and no differences were found between the placebo and control phases. Subscores of atypical and typical depression were also significantly decreased during the active treatment (p = .004 and .028, respectively). A similar trend was noted with the SIGH-SAD-C, but this did not reach significance. At the end of the study, 78% of the parents questioned and 80% of the children questioned rated light therapy as the phase during which the child ‘felt best.’ CONCLUSION: Light therapy appears to be an effective treatment for pediatric SAD.