MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211248784 · doi:10.1177/20451253211067656

Clinical practice guideline recommendations on tapering and discontinuing antidepressants for depression: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4211248784 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineDiscontinuationMedicineTaperingClinical PracticeDepression (economics)MEDLINEPsychiatrySystematic reviewIntensive care medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.455 · 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