ArticleScientific reports2026
Public thresholds for antidepressant effectiveness and adverse drug reaction rates: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effectiveness of antidepressants (ADs) in the treatment of depression is continuously discussed regarding its clinical relevance. The objective of this study was to explore thresholds of members of the public for effectiveness of ADs relative to the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) deemed acceptable. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in Germany that included individuals with and without experiences of depression and ADs. Participants were presented a case scenario describing a moderate depressive episode, operationalized with the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Participants were asked to rate the effectiveness of different treatment options, estimate the frequency of 15 ADRs, and indicate the minimal level of treatment effectiveness they would require to accept certain ADRs. The survey was completed by 208 participants (144 female, 64 male), 44 were taking ADs. The effectiveness of ADs was significantly overestimated (t(204) = 8.96, p < 0.001, d = 0.63). For 13 ADRs, participants selected package-insert frequency categories that were significantly lower than the corresponding reference categories. For example, to accept the potential ADR of seizures, participants required a symptom improvement of M = 23.51 (SD = 8.82) points on the MADRS. We propose that patient-physician communication about risks and benefits of AD treatment should explicitly address individual expectations.
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.