ArticleThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2018
The benefits of antidepressants: news or fake news?
Article in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Major Depressive Disorder in Older Patients as an Inflammatory Disorder: Implications for the Pharmacological Management of Geriatric Depression.Drugs & aging · 2021Review
- What have we learnt from Covid?BJPsych bulletin · 2021Article
- Data Don't Speak for Themselves. Alternative Explanations for Long-Term Use of Psychiatric Drugs.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2020Article
- Exploring how patients respond to GP recommendations for mental health treatment: an analysis of communication in primary care consultations.BJGP open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although antidepressant drugs are commonly effective, several meta-analyses of antidepressant drug trials undertaken decades after their introduction suggested that they were effectively acting as placebos. A recent meta-analysis concluded that they were effective. Both conclusions have been widely taken up by the media. This paper seeks to explain the disconnect.Declaration of interestNone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30027876What 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.