SynthesisPsychological medicine2025
Evidence on antidepressant withdrawal: an appraisal and reanalysis of a recent systematic review.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain zaps after antidepressant discontinuation: Heterogeneous responses across paroxetine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine-a three-case letter.Dusunen adam : Bakirkoy Ruh ve Sinir Hastaliklari Hastanesi yayin organi · 2026Article
- The post-marketing safety of venlafaxine: a real-world two-decade pharmacovigilance study using the FAERS database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Double counting, double standards.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- The role of empathy in antidepressant withdrawal.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been debate about the frequency and severity of antidepressant withdrawal effects.
methodsWe set out to appraise and reanalyze an influential systematic review by Henssler and colleagues that concluded that withdrawal effects are not particularly common and rarely severe. We repeated the meta-analysis, including only studies where data were derived from systematic measures of withdrawal symptoms.
resultsMost data in the Henssler review are derived from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored efficacy studies in which withdrawal was a minor consideration. Shortcomings of the review include the use of spontaneously reported adverse events to estimate withdrawal symptoms, potential misclassification of withdrawal symptoms as relapse, inclusion of data from retrospective case-note studies, short duration of prior antidepressant use, short observation periods, the overlooking of differences between placebo and drug withdrawal effects, and the use of questionable proxies for severe withdrawal. There were also discrepancies and uncertainties in some figures used. In our reanalysis, we included only the five studies that used a systematic and relevant method to assess the incidence of any withdrawal symptom. Prior treatment was short-term (12 weeks or less) in all but one of these. The pooled percentage was 55% (95% confidence interval, CI, 31% to 81%;
conclusionsHenssler's review is based on unreliable data and does not provide an adequate basis for the evaluation of antidepressant withdrawal effects. Further good-quality research on antidepressant withdrawal is required.
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.