Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34596489›Full record

ArticleQualitative health research2021

Critiquing the Critique: Resisting Commonplace Criticisms of Antidepressants in Online Platforms.

Erin Sthamann, Linda M McMullen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative health research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Erin SthamannUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Linda M McMullenUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7948-4778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critiques of antidepressants in public spaces such as print media, blogs, social media, websites, and radio and television programs are now commonplace. Such critiques typically center on issues such as the side effects and risks of antidepressants, overblown claims of effectiveness, the fallacy of the chemical imbalance hypothesis, overprescribing, and the availability of equally or more effective nonmedication interventions for depression. In this article, we employ a discursive analysis to show how online commenters fashion a particular counter-argument to these critiques. Prominent in this counter-argument is that only "real" depression benefits from antidepressants, and that a "one-size-does-not-fit-all" understanding of these medications is needed. We argue that, while this nuanced counter-critique contains features that make it difficult to undermine, it simultaneously embeds many unanswered questions.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsSocial MediaBloggingCommunicationHumansMass MediaAntidepressive Agentsantidepressantscounter-critiquesdepressiondiscursive psychologyonline commentsqualitative

Identifiers

PMID34596489
PMCPMC8649826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.