Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21569244›Full record

ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2011

Should we treat depression with drugs or psychological interventions? A reply to Ioannidis.

John M Davis, William J Giakas, Jie Qu, Pavan Prasad, Stefan Leucht

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Working towards a new psychiatry - neuroscience, technology and the DSM-5.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2012
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

John M DavisPsychiatric Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. JDavis@Psych.uic.edu
William J Giakas
Jie Qu
Pavan Prasad
Stefan Leucht
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie · DERockford University · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We reply to the Ioannidis's paper "Effectiveness of antidepressants; an evidence based myth constructed from a thousand controlled trials." We disagree that antidepressants have no greater efficacy than placebo. We present the efficacy from hundreds of trials in terms of the percentage of patients with a substantial clinical response (a 50% improvement or more symptomatic reduction). This meta-analysis finds that 42-70% of depressed patients improve with drug and 21%-39% improve with placebo. The response benefit of antidepressant treatment is 33%-11% greater than placebo. Ioannidis argues that it would be vanishingly smaller because systematic biasing in these clinical trials would reduce the drug-placebo difference to zero. Ioannidis' argument that antidepressants have no benefit is eroded by his failures of logic because he does not present any evidence that there are a large number of studies where placebo is substantially more effective than drug. (To reduce to zero, one would also have to show that some of the unpublished studies find placebo better than drug and have substantial systematic or methodological bias). We also present the empirical evidence showing that these methodological concerns generally have the opposite effect of what Ioannidis argues, supporting our contention that the measured efficacy of antidepressants likely underestimates true efficacy. Our most important criticism is Ioannidis' basic underlying argument about antidepressants that if the existing evidence is imperfect and methods can be criticized, then this proves that antidepressant are not efficacious. He presents no credible evidence that antidepressants have zero effect size. Valid arguments can point out difficulties with the data but do not prove that a given drug had no efficacy. Indeed better evidence might prove it was more efficacious that originally found. We find no empirical or ethical reason why psychiatrists should not try to help depressed patients with drugs and/or with psychotherapeutic/behavioral treatments given evidence of efficacy even though our treatment knowledge has limitations. The immense suffering of patients with major depression leads to ethical, moral, professional and legal obligations to treat patients with the best available tools at our disposal, while diligently and actively monitoring for adverse effects and actively revising treatment components as necessary.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntidepressive AgentsDrug ApprovalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMajor Depressive DisorderAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID21569244
PMCPMC3123637
OpenAlexW2109484497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.