{"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}
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
