ArticleEvidence-based mental health2020
Real-world effect of antidepressants for depressive disorder in primary care: protocol of a population-based cohort study.
Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and mechanism of acupuncture in animal models of depressive-like behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Optimising the use of electronic medical records for large scale research in psychiatry.Translational psychiatry · 2024Review
- Predicting outcomes at the individual patient level: what is the best method?BMJ mental health · 2023Article
- Polypharmacy and antidepressant acceptability in comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes: a cohort study using UK primary care data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Important adverse events to be evaluated in antidepressant trials and meta-analyses in depression: a large international preference study including patients and healthcare professionals.Evidence-based mental health · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a meta-learner for combining statistical and machine learning prediction models in individuals with depression.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Personalised treatment for cognitive impairment in dementia: development and validation of an artificial intelligence model.BMC medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical guidelines recommend antidepressants as the first line of treatment for adults with moderate-to-severe depression. Randomised trials provide the best evidence on the comparative effectiveness of antidepressants for depression, but are limited by a short follow-up and a highly selected population. We aim to conduct a cohort study on a large database to assess acceptability, efficacy, safety and tolerability of antidepressant monotherapy in people with depressive disorder in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a cohort study using data from the QResearch primary care research database, which is the largest general practice research database in the UK. We will include patients registered for at least 1 year from 1 January 1998, diagnosed with a new episode of depression and on antidepressant and a comparison group not on antidepressant. The exposure of interest will be treatment with antidepressant medications. Our outcomes will be acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause), efficacy (clinical response and remission); safety (adverse events (AEs) and all-cause mortality); and tolerability (dropouts due to any AE) measured at 2 months, 6 months and 1 year. For each outcome, we will estimate the absolute risks for all antidepressants, and relative effects between antidepressants using Cox's proportion hazards models. We will calculate HRs and 99.9% CIs for each outcome of interest. DISCUSSION: The main limitation is the observational nature of our study, while the major strengths include the large representative population contained in QResearch and the possibly high generalisability.
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.