ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2013
Improving study design for antidepressant effectiveness assessment.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evidence base for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency: a meta-assessment of all European Public Assessment Reports.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Superolateral medial forebrain bundle deep brain stimulation in major depression: a gateway trial.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2019Trial
- A randomised cross-over study assessing the "blue pyjama syndrome" in major depressive episode.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Assessment of blinding in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for depressive disorders 2000-2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Deep brain stimulation of the "medial forebrain bundle": a strategy to modulate the reward system and manage treatment-resistant depression.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
- Short- and Long-Term Antidepressant Clinical Trials for Major Depressive Disorder in Youth: Findings and Concerns.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- Double-Blinding and Bias in Medication and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Trials for Major Depressive Disorder.F1000Research · 2015Article
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
Antidepressants effectiveness in major depressive disorder (MDD) is still questioned because the extrapolation of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results to "real life" settings is problematic. The application of the RCT paradigm in a disorder of this type, where global care plays a central role, raises questions regarding the internal and external validity of this type of study. Outcome measurement, attrition rates, the ability of the double-blind design to control for expectations, placebo response, the representativeness of trial participants and publication bias are major methodological pitfalls. This review discusses these issues. It is illustrated using original data and proposes some alternatives for assessing antidepressant effectiveness via different approaches. Some are easy to implement, such as ecological measures, qualitative approaches, improvement of analytical strategy and improvement of blinding procedures. Some are sophisticated, involving temporary deception to deal with the confounding effect of expectations, and they raise ethical issues. Others resort to external validity, this being the case in observational studies. But all are necessary to explore antidepressant effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.