3 ms·
Right, a metastudy where one of the stipulations is: "We excluded ... trials that ... included 20% or more of participants with ... treatment-resistant depress
by nostrebored 4y ago
Right, a metastudy where one of the stipulations is:
"We excluded ... trials that ... included 20% or more of participants with ... treatment-resistant depression"
And still the result is:
"46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low."
And the cognitive bias is towards efficacy. We've raised and taught two generation of people who believe in a thoroughly defunct theory of 'chemical imbalance'. SSRIs are conceived from this idea and presented as evidence of this idea, but it simply does not hold up under scrutiny [1].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/
- gruez 4y ago> Right, a metastudy where one of the stipulations is: >"We excluded ... trials that ... included 20% or more of participants with ... treatment-resistant depression" That seems reasonable, as long as 20% isn't the baseline level of "treatment-resistant depression". If you're going to do a search for all anti-depressants studies, you're bound to turn up some studies that are researching-treatment resistant depression. If you're trying to study how anti-depressants behave typically, it makes sense to exclude the extreme examples, just like if you're trying to study whether an anti-cancer medication works you want to exclude the cases where the patient was on his deathbed.