Updated CANMAT Guidelines for Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (CJP) includes updates to the popular Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder. This is the third iteration of these guidelines for major depressive disorder, the first being published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. It is important to emphasize that these and other CANMAT guidelines are not endorsed by the Canadian Psychiatric Association. CJP has previously published guidelines developed by other independent groups. The series consists of 6 articles focusing on burden and principles of care, psychological treatments, pharmacological treatments, neurostimulation treatments, complementary and alternative medicine treatments, and special populations. What is immediately apparent from the CANMAT guidelines is their distinctiveness. There are contemporary quality assessment and reporting guidelines for projects of this type, called Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II). As a consequence of AGREE II, recently published guidelines have become increasingly standardized in their methodology and reporting. The CANMAT guidelines fulfill many of the items listed in AGREE II but not all. Rather than tailoring their reporting to AGREE II, CANMAT instead uses a questionand-answer format that has been well received by clinicians in previous versions of their guidelines. Central to the process of parsing evidence into clinical guidance is a grading of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Internationally, the current standard for doing so is the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. CANMAT has chosen not to use this approach and instead uses its own level of evidence and ‘lines of treatment’ rating systems. Perhaps the most distinctive feature is CANMAT’s explicit incorporation of expert opinion in assessment of lines of treatment. These are based on evidence plus ‘clinical support’, the latter being assigned through the expert opinion of the CANMAT committees. Most evidence-based guidelines emphasize minimization of the role of expert opinion. They view opinion as a weak source of evidence that risks distorting stronger forms of evidence (i.e., that deriving from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses). CANMAT makes no apologies for going in a different direction. It believes that the integration of levels of evidence with expert opinion renders its recommendations more usable and realistic, and also that the ‘lines of treatment’ concept produces an alignment of the guidelines with stepped-care management concepts. The AGREE II checklist includes an item assessing ‘competing interests’, which is a component of the AGREE II ‘Editorial Independence’ domain. Readers will note that some members of the CANMAT authorship group disclose multiple relevant financial activities, whereas other members report none. CJP requires disclosure of activities ‘‘that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing’’ the work under consideration. In keeping with the editorial stance of most peer-reviewed journals, authors are encouraged to be inclusive, reporting ‘‘interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work.’’ This approach allows readers to decide the extent to which such information may affect their acceptance or interpretation of the guidance provided. The approaches taken by the CANMAT group, while distinct from those of many other depression guidelines, have been embraced by clinicians and widely discussed both within Canada and internationally. These guidelines offer an interesting approach and texture to the provision of clinical guidance for the management of major depressive disorder. They also represent a considerable investment of effort by a notable group of Canadian psychiatrists and
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,051 | 0,024 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».