http://exhibits.library.stonybrook.edu/mfp/files/original/9e14be4cb4613376d47304d64ce961e7.pdf 275a09979c4afdee5c64e4cd9cf884b2 PDF Text Text February 27 , 1967 Dr. Karl Rickels University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry University Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1910” Dear Karl, very pleased that our project has passed another hurdle. During the past two weeks I have read and re-read your proposed protocol and would like to share with you some questions and am enclosing a preliminary budget for your consideration. I am If I understand the proposal, it is to compare two drugs, alone and canbined with a placebo. Ratings will be done prior to drug administration, and after two and four weeks of treat— ment. This is not to be a crossover study and so the number of patients required will be at least 120. This indicates that the patient flow in your clinic is indeed large. From the EEG point of view, the number of subjects and the sampling will be adequate. In these patients , one consideration might be that an' initial record taken during the pre-treatment period should be discarded. In naive subjects, an EEG recording is often accompanied by considerable anxiety and this is best alleviated by a recording and the overt demonstration that it is without risk. if we plan four recordings for each subject, the 500 useful records. From past should anticipate approximately we with experience drop-cuts, one—third more records than we need - for a total of 650 records. I would like to know If this is a realistic figure, thenadmissions what to the study are, new the patient approximately number of the weekly appraise we can realistically so that records required. The sample length will be determined, in part, by the number of records to be run. Other things being equal, I would suggest at least twelve minutes of recording with eyes closed, and two minutes of eyes opened. The termination of each recording might be a hyperventilation, with a two minute posteach instance , therecording Will ation cord. a east a to 10 ute settling period followed by a 15 minute actual recording. Thus, on study will have a minimum of Wen? �February 27 , 1967 Dr. Karl Rickels University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry University Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1910” Dear Karl, very pleased that our project has passed another hurdle. During the past two weeks I have read and re-read your proposed protocol and would like to share with you some questions and am enclosing a preliminary budget for your consideration. I am If I understand the proposal, it is to compare two drugs, alone and canbined with a placebo. Ratings will be done prior to drug administration, and after two and four weeks of treat— ment. This is not to be a crossover study and so the number of patients required will be at least 120. This indicates that the patient flow in your clinic is indeed large. From the EEG point of view, the number of subjects and the sampling will be adequate. In these patients , one consideration might be that an' initial record taken during the pre-treatment period should be discarded. In naive subjects, an EEG recording is often accompanied by considerable anxiety and this is best alleviated by a recording and the overt demonstration that it is without risk. if we plan four recordings for each subject, the 500 useful records. From past should anticipate approximately we with experience drop-cuts, one—third more records than we need - for a total of 650 records. I would like to know If this is a realistic figure, thenadmissions what to the study are, new the patient approximately number of the weekly appraise we can realistically so that records required. The sample length will be determined, in part, by the number of records to be run. Other things being equal, I would suggest at least twelve minutes of recording with eyes closed, and two minutes of eyes opened. The termination of each recording might be a hyperventilation, with a two minute posteach instance , therecording Will ation cord. a east a to 10 ute settling period followed by a 15 minute actual recording. Thus, on study will have a minimum of Wen? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence to: Rickels, Karl Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mfp-05-00-021-3-130 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1967 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a title="Fink, Max, 1923-" href="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79039548" target="_blank">Fink, Max, 1923-</a> Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence -- Correspondence Relation A related resource The Max Fink Collection Description An account of the resource Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a title="IN COPYRIGHT - EDUCATIONAL USE PERMITTED" href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/" target="_blank">IN COPYRIGHT - EDUCATIONAL USE PERMITTED</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Special Collections and University Archives, University Libraries. Stony Brook University Libraries (State University of New York). Language A language of the resource en-US Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Correspondence