Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor and Venlafaxine Use in Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review of Published Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review critiques published randomized placebo-controlled trials pertaining to the efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. METHOD: Medline was searched for articles meeting defined inclusion criteria. The following key terms were used: depressive disorders, antidepressive agents, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, child, and adolescent. RESULTS: Six articles met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies claim efficacy by significant results in primary outcomes; both have since been contested in further analysis. Not one study adequately examines safety, particularly with respect to whether a link exists between antidepressant use and induction of suicidal ideation or attempts. CONCLUSION: Published studies on SSRI or venlafaxine use in children and adolescents are inconclusive with respect to safety and efficacy, owing to inappropriate claims of efficacy, lack of improvement in global functioning scores, nonstandardized data collection regarding adverse effects, exclusion of suicidal subjects in the recruitment process, grouping of children and adolescents together, small sample sizes, conflict of interest posed by pharmaceutical company sponsorship, and publishing bias. Future investigators should consider these factors when developing study designs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".