Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42032573›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2026

Treatment resistant depression in electronic health records: definitions matter.

Matthew H Iveson, Emily L Ball, Chris Wai Hang Lo, Matúš Falis, Cathryn M Lewis, Heather C Whalley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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. Article
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

6 authors.

Matthew H IvesonInstitute for Neuroscience and Cardiovascular Research, The University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. Matthew.Iveson@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7242-0456
Emily L BallThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7445-9581
Chris Wai Hang LoSocial, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3219-8942
Matúš FalisInstitute for Neuroscience and Cardiovascular Research, The University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-7649-6251
Cathryn M LewisSocial, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8249-8476
Heather C WhalleyInstitute for Neuroscience and Cardiovascular Research, The University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4505-8869

Funding

MQ: Transforming Mental Health MPSIP\30Research Data Scotland RAS-24-2UK Research and Innovation MC/PC/17209Wellcome Trust 226770/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany people with depression do not respond well to the first antidepressant prescribed. Treatment Resistant Depression (TRD) refers to depression which does not respond to multiple subsequent antidepressant treatments. Identifying TRD in routinely-collected health records is challenging due to limited response-related data. Previous studies have used definitions based on the number of antidepressant switches observed. However, these do not account for other features clinically indicative of treatment resistance, such as augmentation of antidepressants with lithium or antipsychotics and switches between antidepressant classes. This study examined definitions of TRD and their impact on the resulting sample across three cohorts.

methodsAcross the DataLoch, UK Biobank, and Generation Scotland cohorts, we identified cases of depression from primary and secondary care record codes and extracted antidepressant treatment patterns from dispensing/prescribing records (N = 51,283, N = 10,556, and N = 649 respectively). We examined 9 TRD definitions that varied along two axes: the minimum number of switches required (1+, 2 + or 3 + switches), and the inclusion of other clinical features (augmentation and one or more between-class switches) as alternative routes to TRD. We contrasted sample size and characteristics between definitions, and examined factors associated with inclusion versus a reference definition of 2 + switches.

resultsThe reference TRD definition included 10% of depression cases in the routine data collection, but substantially fewer cases (4%) in consented cohorts. More inclusive definitions that required fewer switches or included a between-class switch classified more individuals as TRD, but resulted in a proportionally older, more deprived sample with fewer depression-related health record codes, older age of depression onset, lower symptom severity, and greater use of first-line antidepressants. Requiring more switches (3 + switches) classified fewer individuals as TRD, but resulted in a proportionally younger sample, with more depression-related health record codes, younger age of depression onset, and greater use of antidepressants associated with later in the treatment line (e.g., Tricyclics). Definitions including augmentations resulted in a small increase in sample size without notable change in sample characteristics.

conclusionsTRD is underrepresented in consented cohort studies. A definition of TRD that includes 2 + antidepressant switches or augmented antidepressant treatment as indicators balances sample size with depression severity, while incorporating features from real-world treatment journeys. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsDepressive Disorder, Treatment-ResistantElectronic Health RecordsAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedScotlandUnited KingdomAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressantsDepressionHealth recordsPrescribingTreatment resistance

Identifiers

PMID42032573
PMCPMC13245096

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.