MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2073120020 · doi:10.1176/pn.40.15.00400019a

Data Behind Antidepressant Advisory Don't Give Clear-Cut Answers

2005· article· en· W2073120020 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jim Rosack

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdvisory committeeAntidepressantPsychologyManagementPsychiatryEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessData Behind Antidepressant Advisory Don't Give Clear-Cut AnswersJim RosackJim RosackPublished Online:5 Aug 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.15.00400019aThe FDA's June 30 public health advisory concerning antidepressants was prompted, the advisory said, by "several recent scientific publications" that suggested "the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications."FDA spokesperson Christine Parker told Psychiatric News that the advisory was prompted by "two papers of particular interest." Both appeared in the February 19 BMJ (Psychiatric News, April 1).The first study was led by Dean Fergusson, M.D., a scientist researcher at the Ottawa Health Research Institute's Clinical Epidemiology Program in Ottawa, Canada. Fergusson and his colleagues analyzed 702 clinical trials involving more than 87,000 adult patients with depression and other disorders.Fergusson found that patients taking SSRIs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as patients in the trial taking placebo (odds ratio 2.28). However, the analysis found no increase in risk when only the number of completed suicides of patients taking SSRIs was compared with that of subjects taking placebo.No significant differences were noted in the risk of suicide attempt in patients taking tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) compared with those taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).The second study cited by Parker reviewed data from more than 40,000 adult patients in 477 clinical trials that drug companies had submitted to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). In this analysis, David Gunnell, M.D., a professor of epidemiology at the University of Bristol, England, and colleagues found "weak evidence of an increased risk of self-harm (odds ratio 1.57)." However, they found" no evidence that SSRIs increased the risk of suicide."A third study published in the same issue of BMJ, but not cited by Parker, was led by Carlos Martinez, M.D., an epidemiologist in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) Division of the MHRA. He was joined by Gunnell and others. They analyzed the course of all patients in the GPRD who had a new diagnosis of depression and for whom an antidepressant was prescribed between 1995 and 2001.In more than 146,000 patients aged 10 to 90, Martinez and his team found that the risk of self-harm and suicide was not significantly different between SSRIs and TCAs. Children and adolescents under age 18 who were prescribed antidepressants were at increased risk for self-harm (odds ratio 1.59) compared with peers who had not been prescribed one of these medications. However, no increased risk was seen in any older cohort.Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., director of research at APA and executive director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, noted when the studies were published that the findings were difficult to interpret. Fergusson's finding of a twofold risk of nonfatal self-harm in self-reported adverse events but no increase in completed suicides" remains difficult to interpret and deserves additional study," Regier told Psychiatric News in March.Gunnell's findings of "weak evidence of increased risk of self-harm and inconclusive evidence of increased risk of suicidal thoughts," Regier added, "illustrate the contradictory nature of findings coming from these studies."Abstracts of the three BMJ studies are posted at<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/vol330/issue7488/>.▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,460
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,124
Tête enseignante GPT0,419
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric NewsMême sujetHealth and Medical Research ImpactsTravaux en français237 207