ReviewPharmacoEconomics2000
The need for an iterative process for assessing economic outcomes associated with SSRIs.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of depression and use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy among adults in the United States: does a disparity persist by ethnicity/race?Clinical drug investigation · 2012Article
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antidepressants : a critical appraisal of methods.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of depression have included the development of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), thereby providing alternatives to tricyclic antidepressants. Concurrent with these events have been significant structural (e.g. pharmaceutical formularies) and regulatory (e.g. required pharmacoeconomic evaluations) changes in the delivery, financing, and oversight of healthcare programmes throughout the world. International cost-containment initiatives are increasingly mandating a demonstration of value for money, defined in terms of a measurable health and/or financial outcome, and, in the case of medicines, attributable to a given expenditure, for a given pharmacotherapeutic option. We examine the inherent strengths and weaknesses of 5 study designs used to discern and contrast financial outcomes stemming from the use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for the treatment of depressive illness [randomised controlled trials (RCTs); meta-analyses; decision-analytical models (DAMs); retrospective database investigations; randomised naturalistic inquiry]. We argue that the economic appraisal of pharmacotherapy requires an iterative process extending from the developmental (RCTs; meta-analyses; DAMs) through to the postmarketing phase (database reviews; naturalistic inquiry), thereby resulting in a portfolio of evidence as to the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a given pharmacotherapeutic category (e.g. SSRIs) and/or a specific medication. Database reviews, while nonrandomised, and prospective naturalistic inquiry afford greater insight into the patterns of use and financial merits of prescribing specific pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of depression within the context of clinical practice as compared with RCTs, meta-analyses and DAMs. The portfolio of evidence to date indicates that the first-line use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression is clinically warranted, and represents value for money.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11147388What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.