Clinical practice guideline recommendations on tapering and discontinuing antidepressants for depression: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tapering and discontinuing antidepressants are important aspects of the management of patients with depression and should therefore be considered in clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the extent and content, and appraise the quality, of guidance on tapering and discontinuing antidepressants in major clinical practice guidelines on depression. METHODS: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines on depression issued by national health authorities and major national or international professional organisations in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Ireland and New Zealand (PROSPERO CRD42020220682). We searched PubMed, 14 guideline registries and the websites of relevant organisations (last search 25 May 2021). The clinical practice guidelines were assessed for recommendations and information relevant to tapering and discontinuing antidepressants. The quality of the clinical practice guidelines as they pertained to tapering and discontinuation was assessed using the AGREE II tool. RESULTS: Of the 21 included clinical practice guidelines, 15 (71%) recommended that antidepressants are tapered gradually or slowly, but none provided guidance on dose reductions, how to distinguish withdrawal symptoms from relapse or how to manage withdrawal symptoms. Psychological challenges were not addressed in any clinical practice guideline, and the treatment algorithms and flow charts did not include discontinuation. The quality of the clinical practice guidelines was overall low. CONCLUSION: Current major clinical practice guidelines provide little support for clinicians wishing to help patients discontinue or taper antidepressants in terms of mitigating and managing withdrawal symptoms. Patients who have deteriorated upon following current guidance on tapering and discontinuing antidepressants thus cannot be concluded to have experienced a relapse. Better guidance requires better randomised trials investigating interventions for discontinuing or tapering antidepressants.
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 | 0.047 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".