MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2992709887

"I Didn't Just Cross a Line I Tripped over an Edge": Experiences of Serious Adverse Effects with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Use

2008· article· en· W2992709887 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Jane Liebert, Nicola Gavey

Notice bibliographique

RevueNew Zealand journal of psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMental Health Research Topics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdverse effectPsychologySerotonin reuptake inhibitorAkathisiaAggressionPsychiatryHarmFluoxetineReuptake inhibitorMedicineSocial psychologyAntidepressantSerotoninPharmacologyAnxietyInternal medicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Evidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may elicit suicidal and/or aggressive thoughts and behaviours has been circulating for nearly thirty years. Despite a growing body of knowledge around these serious adverse effects, however, they continue to be surrounded by controversy. In particular they are subject to (arguable) counter-arguments that any risks from using the drugs are outweighed by benefits and/or more attributable to a person's 'underlying disease'. Moreover assessments of risks often use rates of completed suicides as the ultimate measure. In this paper we draw on people's own accounts of their experiences of serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use. In depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with nine people who had either used SSRIs themselves or had witnessed the use of SSRIs by a close family member. We present four themes identified across the interviews relating to adverse effects from SSRIs: experiences of akathisia, aggression and suicidality; 'out of character' behaviour; harm to relationships; and accounts of responses from the medical profession. Participants reported that the experience of adverse effects had marked impacts on general wellbeing, identities and relationships. These accounts cast doubt on notions that serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use may stem from an underlying condition and/or be outweighed by benefits from SSRI use. In addition they offer a persuasive and poignant plea to further consider non-fatal adverse effects and their consequences in assessing the risks of these drugs. ********** Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants have become the subject of considerable controversy in recent years. Not only have serious questions been raised about the efficacy of these drugs (e.g., Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2005) but evidence has long been mounting of an association between SSRIs and suicide. This evidence which has arisen from a range of sources including case reports (e.g., Teicher, Glod, & Cole, 1990), recta- and re-analyses of clinical trials (e.g., Kraus, 2006), legal cases (e.g., Healy, 2004a), epidemiological studies (e.g., Donovan et al., 2000) and primary care databases (e.g., Martinez et al., 2005)--has lead critics to urge far greater caution around the use of these drugs, particularly at the point of starting, stopping or changing dose (Healy, 2004a). According to Healy (2006) the current best estimate for the likely risk of suicide on SSRIs over placebo is 2.6 (p. 93). Links between SSRIs and a number of other serious adverse (and withdrawal) effects--such as aggression, akathisia, mania and the wider realm of suicidality--have also been postulated (e.g., Breggin, 2003; Glenmullen, 2000; Healy, 2004a; Medawar, Herxheimer, Bell & Jofre, 2002; Whitaker, 2005), although the research evidence is less well established (see for instance Healy, Herxheimer, & Menkes, 2006, regarding the links between SSRIs and violence). Although pharmaceutical regulatory bodies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have responded to this evidence of serious potential adverse effects by issuing warnings about the risks associated with SSRIs (e.g., ADRAC, 2004; EMEA, 2005; FDA, 2005; Health Canada, 2004; Medsafe, 2004; MHRA, 2003), proponents of the drugs nevertheless continue to argue that their benefits outweigh the risks. For instance, it has been claimed that SSRIs are associated with a decrease in the rate of suicide at the population level (e.g., Khan, Khan, Leventhal, & Brown, 2001), although more recently others have countered that there is no evidence for any causal relationship between increasing use of SSRIs and declining rates of suicide (e.g., Safer & Zito, 2007). As well as this debate about whether SSRIs 'on balance' may help more people than they hurt, the currency in which such cost-benefit analyses are calculated is often restricted to measures of completed suicide. …

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)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,309
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,858

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,432
Écart entre enseignants0,365 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations6
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNew Zealand journal of psychologyMême sujetMental Health Research TopicsTravaux en français237 207