Are Antidepressants Effective in the Treatment of Postpartum Depression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article AbstractObjective: In spite of the paucity of randomized controlled trials of antidepressants in postpartum depression, these drugs are the most commonly used agents in the pharmacologic treatment of postpartum depression. This article reviews the literature on the efficacy of antidepressants in randomized controlled trials of postpartum depression. Data Sources: Four electronic databases, MEDLINE/PubMed (1966-2013), PsycINFO (1806-2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched using a combination of the keywords antidepressive agents/therapeutic use, antidepressant drugs, antidepressant agent/drug therapy, depression, postpartum/drug therapy, postpartum depression, and puerperal depression/drug therapy. Study Selection: The reference lists of articles identified were also searched. All relevant articles published in English were included. A total of 124 articles were identified. The efficacy of antidepressants has been studied in 6 randomized controlled trials, of which 3 were placebo-controlled studies. Results: Placebo-controlled randomized data do not support the notion that antidepressants are efficacious in postpartum depression. However, the methodological flaws of studies have to be kept in mind while interpreting the results of these studies. Conclusions: Due to the paucity of controlled data and methodological limitations of studies, the question about the efficacy of antidepressants in postpartum depression cannot be answered unequivocally. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2013;15(6):doi:10.4088/PCC.13r01529 © Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. Submitted: May 8, 2013; accepted August 29, 2013. Published online: November 21, 2013. Corresponding author: Verinder Sharma, MBBS, FRCPC, Regional Mental Health Care, 850 Highbury Ave North, PO Box 5532, Station B, London, Ontario N6A 4H1, Canada (vsharma@uwo.ca).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".