4 ms·

Weird article. It tries very hard uo front to defend modern depression drugs until midway down, where the lede gets buried: Research suggests antidepressants w

Weird article. It tries very hard uo front to defend modern depression drugs until midway down, where the lede gets buried: Research suggests antidepressants work only a bit better than placebos (dummy drugs people are told could be the real thing). There are debates among researchers about how significant this difference is. And this bit has been known for a good deal longer than the more current news that the shakiness of the whole premise of brain chemical imbalance.

alecbz 4y ago
Reposting from another comment: I think https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-y... is a good summary. One quote: > The guy who invented effect size suggested that 0.2 be called “small”, 0.5 be called “medium”, and 0.8 be called “large”. NICE, a UK health research group, somewhat randomly declared that effect sizes greater than 0.5 be called “clinically significant” and effect sizes less than 0.5 be called “not clinically significant”, but their reasoning was basically that 0.5 was a nice round number, and a few years later they changed their mind and admitted they had no reason behind their decision. > Despite these somewhat haphazard standards, some people have decided that antidepressants’ effect size of 0.3 means they are “clinically insignificant”. > (please note that “clinically insignificant” is very different from “statistically insignificant” aka “has a p-value less than 0.05.” Nearly everyone agrees antidepressants have a statistically significant effect – they do something. The dispute is over whether they have a clinically significant effect – the something they do is enough to make a real difference to real people)
- throwoutway 4y ago
  The willy/random changing of the definition of significance is absolutely concerning.

alecbz 4y ago

Reposting from another comment: I think https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-y... is a good summary. One quote: > The guy who invented effect size suggested that 0.2 be called “small”, 0.5 be called “medium”, and 0.8 be called “large”. NICE, a UK health research group, somewhat randomly declared that effect sizes greater than 0.5 be called “clinically significant” and effect sizes less than 0.5 be called “not clinically significant”, but their reasoning was basically that 0.5 was a nice round number, and a few years later they changed their mind and admitted they had no reason behind their decision. > Despite these somewhat haphazard standards, some people have decided that antidepressants’ effect size of 0.3 means they are “clinically insignificant”. > (please note that “clinically insignificant” is very different from “statistically insignificant” aka “has a p-value less than 0.05.” Nearly everyone agrees antidepressants have a statistically significant effect – they do something. The dispute is over whether they have a clinically significant effect – the something they do is enough to make a real difference to real people)

throwoutway 4y ago
The willy/random changing of the definition of significance is absolutely concerning.