Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40059786›Full record

ReviewCNS spectrums2025

SSRIs: exploring controversies, conundrums, and contentions-epiphenomenon or empirical ingenuity? A comparative panorama for untangling enigma in children and youths.

Mayank Gupta, Theodore A Petti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS spectrums, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Mayank GuptaSouthwood Children Behavioral Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0521-1419
Theodore A PettiRutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in treating psychiatric disorders has been a subject of heated debate since their introduction. Initially celebrated for their potential to address various mental health conditions during the late 1980s and 1990s, SSRIs have since faced significant scrutiny. Critics argue that their benefits may not be as substantial as initially believed. Over the past two decades, concerns have intensified with the emergence of boxed warnings about the risks associated with SSRIs, particularly regarding their link to increased suicidal thoughts in youth. This controversy is further complicated by questions about the integrity of early industry-sponsored trials and the reliability of subsequent National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) trials. These issues have raised ongoing critical concerns about the effectiveness and safety of SSRIs, especially for treating a range of disorders in children and adolescents. This review seeks to critically appraise by presenting empirical evidence that addresses these controversies. It explores the validity of the monoamine theory, examines the fidelity of early and recent trials, and considers the broader implications for clinical practice. By answering specific, targeted questions, this article aims to clarify the ongoing debate and enhance the understanding of SSRIs' role in mental health treatment. The goal is to support clinicians in making more informed decisions when prescribing these medications and to ensure consideration of the balance between potential benefits and risks for young patients with mental health disorders.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsAdolescentChildHumansSuicidal IdeationSelective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitorsbox warningscontroversiesmental healthmonoamine theorypsychiatric disordersSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitorsyouth and adolescents

Identifiers

PMID40059786
PMCPMC13064689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.