3 ms·
> if they see evidence of improvement after 8 weeks, that's quite different from having no evidence of improvement at all. There may show that there are short-
by Valmar 8y ago
> if they see evidence of improvement after 8 weeks, that's quite different from having no evidence of improvement at all.
There may show that there are short-term improvements, but it says nothing about the medium to long-term effects on depression.
It's therefore worthless for being able to perceive any of the longer-term negative side effectives of the drugs.
It almost seems like a study that the drug companies would find as favourable advertizing for their drugs. It makes me suspicious that it may have been funded by drug company money.
- lhuser123 8y ago> It makes me suspicious that it may have been funded by drug company money. That’s the problem. Always has been. Always will be.
- capnrefsmmat 8y ago> It almost seems like a study that the drug companies would find as favourable advertizing for their drugs. It makes me suspicious that it may have been funded by drug company money. The funding is openly disclosed: > This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K19808). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health. One of the authors, John Ioannidis, is famous as a crusader for better evidence and better statistics in medicine; he's the author of the famous "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" paper about the potential for false positives for medicine. I would be willing to trust the statistical evidence, though I think you're right to be concerned about 8 weeks as too short a time period.