ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2017
Methodological Flaws, Conflicts of Interest, and Scientific Fallacies: Implications for the Evaluation of Antidepressants' Efficacy and Harm.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Pooled it
- Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Raising Placebo Efficacy in Antidepressant Trials Across Decades Explained by Small-Study Effects: A Meta-Reanalysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- Guidelines for the pharmacological acute treatment of major depression: conflicts with current evidence as demonstrated with the German S3-guidelines.BMC psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Institutional Corruption in the Political Economy of Global Mental Health: Challenges for Transformative Human Rights Praxis.Health and human rights · 2025Article
- No benefit of antidepressants in inpatient treatment of depression. A longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study.Psychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Associations between Pharmacological Treatment Patterns during the Initial Treatment Period and the Relapse or Recurrence of Anxiety Disorders: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- From contact coverage to effective coverage of community care for patients with severe mental disorders: A real-world investigation from Italy.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Did the introduction and increased prescribing of antidepressants lead to changes in long-term trends of suicide rates?European journal of public health · 2021Article
- Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- Prophylactic effects or withdrawal reactions? An analysis of time-to-event data from antidepressant relapse prevention trials submitted to the FDA.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2021Article
- Should we, can we, halt the rise in prescribing for pain and distress?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- How effective are antidepressants for depression over the long term? A critical review of relapse prevention trials and the issue of withdrawal confounding.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2020Review
- Prevalence and Determinants of Long-Term Utilization of Antidepressant Drugs: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2020Article
- The 'patient voice': patients who experience antidepressant withdrawal symptoms are often dismissed, or misdiagnosed with relapse, or a new medical condition.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Protracted withdrawal syndrome after stopping antidepressants: a descriptive quantitative analysis of consumer narratives from a large internet forum.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Review
- Depressive disorders: Treatment failures and poor prognosis over the last 50 years.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn current psychiatric practice, antidepressants are widely and with ever-increasing frequency prescribed to patients. However, several scientific biases obfuscate estimates of antidepressants' efficacy and harm, and these are barely recognized in treatment guidelines. The aim of this mini-review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and harm of antidepressants for acute and maintenance treatment with respect to systematic biases related to industry funding and trial methodology.
methodsNarrative review based on a comprehensive search of the literature.
resultsIt is shown that the pooled efficacy of antidepressants is weak and below the threshold of a minimally clinically important change once publication and reporting biases are considered. Moreover, the small mean difference in symptom reductions relative to placebo is possibly attributable to observer effects in unblinded assessors and patient expectancies. With respect to trial dropout rates, a hard outcome not subjected to observer bias, no difference was observed between antidepressants and placebo. The discontinuation trials on the efficacy of antidepressants in maintenance therapy are systematically flawed, because in these studies, spontaneous remitters are excluded, whereas half of all patients who remitted on antidepressants are abruptly switched to placebo. This can cause a severe withdrawal syndrome that is easily misdiagnosed as a relapse when assessed on subjective symptom rating scales. In accordance, the findings of naturalistic long-term studies suggest that maintenance therapy has no clear benefit, and non-drug users do not show increased recurrence rates. Moreover, a growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls.
conclusionThe strong reliance on industry-funded research results in an uncritical approval of antidepressants. Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. Therefore, I conclude that antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.
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.