MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478017657 · doi:10.1177/0706743716659417

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder

2016· review· en· W2478017657 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sidney H. Kennedy, Raymond W. Lam, Roger S. McIntyre, Smadar Valérie Tourjman, Venkat Bhat, Pierre Blier, Mehrul Hasnain, Fabrice Jollant, Anthony Levitt, Glenda MacQueen, Shane McInerney, Diane McIntosh, Roumen Milev, Daniel J. Müller, Sagar V. Parikh, Norma L. Pearson, Arun Ravindran, Rudolf Uher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pharmacists AssociationQueen's UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Network for Mood and Anxiety TreatmentsInternational Society for Bipolar Disorders
KeywordsAnxietyMoodPsychiatryPsychologyMajor depressive disorderClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Anxiety disorderMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. METHODS: Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. "Pharmacological Treatments" is the third of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. With little new information on older medications, treatment recommendations focus on second-generation antidepressants. RESULTS: Evidence-informed responses are given for 21 questions under 4 broad categories: 1) principles of pharmacological management, including individualized assessment of patient and medication factors for antidepressant selection, regular and frequent monitoring, and assessing clinical and functional outcomes with measurement-based care; 2) comparative aspects of antidepressant medications based on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including summaries of newly approved drugs since 2009; 3) practical approaches to pharmacological management, including drug-drug interactions and maintenance recommendations; and 4) managing inadequate response and treatment resistance, with a focus on switching antidepressants, applying adjunctive treatments, and new and emerging agents. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based pharmacological treatments are available for first-line treatment of MDD and for management of inadequate response. However, given the limitations of the evidence base, pharmacological management of MDD still depends on tailoring treatments to the patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,123
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207