ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2025
Examining Treatment Options in Youth With Major Depressive Disorder: Observations From the TX-YDSRN Registry Study.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Treatment decisions for depression are a complex process, influenced by factors such as clinical characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and patient/caregiver preferences. This study examines the characteristics of treatment options during the first month of enrollment among depressed youth. Methods: Data for 646 depressed youth were extracted from the Texas Youth Depression and Suicide Research Network study. Participants' treatments during the first month were categorized as no treatment (NT), psychotherapy only (THER), pharmacotherapy only (MED), or a combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (COMB). Sociodemographic and clinical features were compared across these treatment types. Results: 7% were on NT, 5% on THER, 35% on MED, and 53% on COMB. The MED group was more likely to have low income compared to the COMB group. Compared to the MED group, COMB treatment had higher depression severity and suicidality. The NT group showed higher rates of social risk compared to the group with COMB. Treatment groups did not differ significantly in sex or race. When treatment preferences were examined, 40% of youth on MED expressed a preference for COMB treatment. Conclusions: Treatment options vary with demographic characteristics, depression severity, suicidality, and high-risk social factors. The finding that youth on MED are more likely to have low income compared to COMB treatment, despite a preference for COMB treatment among many, may suggest a potential barrier to accessing comprehensive treatment options. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Findings highlight the need to address barriers to combination treatment, which is preferred by youth and caregivers for managing depression.
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.