ReviewShanghai archives of psychiatry2014
Appraisal of the methodological quality and summary of the findings of systematic reviews on the relationship between SSRIs and suicidality.
Review in Shanghai archives of psychiatry, 2014. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Preterm birth: the role of knowledge transfer and exchange.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral systematic reviews have been published about the relationship of the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and risk of suicidal ideation or behavior but there has been no formal assessment of the quality of these reports.
aimAssess the methodological quality of systematic reviews about the relationship of SSRI use and suicidal ideation and behavior; and provide overall conclusions based on this assessment.
methodsSystematic reviews of RCTs that compared SSRIs to placebo and used suicidal ideation or behavior as a key outcome variable were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, WANFANG DATA, and the Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database. The methodological quality of included reviews was independently assessed by two expert raters using the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale.
resultsTwelve systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified. The inter-rater reliability of the overall AMSTAR quality score was excellent (ICC=0.86) but the inter-rater reliability of 5 of the 11 AMSTAR items was poor (Kappa <0.60). Based on the AMSTAR total score, there was one high-quality review, eight moderate-quality reviews, and three low-quality reviews. The high-quality review and three of the moderate-quality reviews reported a significantly increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in the SSRI group compared to the placebo group. Three of the four reviews limited to children and adolescents found a significantly increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior with SSRI use which was most evident in teenagers taking paroxetine and in teenagers with depressive disorders.
conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that adolescents may experience an increase in suicidal ideation and behavior with SSRI use, particularly those who have a depressive disorder and those treated with paroxetine. However, there are few high-quality reviews on this issue, so some doubt about the evidence remains. The AMSTAR scale may be useful in the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of systematic reviews, but further work is needed on tightening the operational criteria for some of the items in the scale.
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.