He is a consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Corcept, Cypress Biosciences, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKIine, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Otsuka, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Quintiles. He is on the Speakers Bureau for Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKIine, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. He owns stock in Corcept,

Cypress Biosciences and Acadia Pharmaceuticals. He is on the Board of Directors for AFSP, American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), George West Mental Health Foundation, Novadel Pharma, National Foundation for Mental Health (NFMH). He has patents Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for “Method and devices for transdermal delivery of lithium (US 6,375,990 B1)” and “Method to estimate serotonin and norepinephrine transporter occupancy after drug Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical treatment using patient or animal serum (provisional filing April, 2001).” He has equity in Reevax, BMGJR LLC, and CeNeRx. PEH has received grants from the American Federation for Aging Research (AFAR), Neuronetics, Inc, and the National Center for Research Resources.
Depression rating scales were introduced into clinical psychiatry in the 1960s, with the advent

of antidepressants such Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical as imipramine and phenelzine.1-3 In the early trials, both global improvement scales and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) were used. As discussed by Lam et al,1 historically the use of depression symptom scales such as the HAM-D was not a routine aspect of patient care for frontline mental health clinicians. The present situation seems to be that we are facing two prototypes of clinicians, “Dr Gestalt,” Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical who uses a global clinical impression scale, and “Dr Scales, ” who has incorporated the routine use of rating scales into daily clinical Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical practice.1 When comparing Dr Gestalt with Dr Scales with respect to limitations and pitfalls in using depression rating scales, it seems appropriate to use the functional analysis proposed

by Emmelkamp.2 According to this proposal, we can refer to macroanalysis and microanalysis of rating scales. Macroanalysis focuses on the diagnosis of depression and thereby the prediction of treatment response, while microanalysis focuses on outcome measures Ketanserin of treatment. At the macroanalytic level, it is appropriate to discuss depression rating scales such as the HAM-D in comparison with a diagnostic system of mental disorders such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed (DSM-IV),3 while at the microanalytic level a direct comparison between Dr Gestalt and Dr Scales is relevant. Macroanalysis Emmelkamp2 used the learn more polythetic algorithms of the DSM-IV to illustrate the limitation of the clinical diagnosis of depression when developing treatment strategies for the patients.