{"title":"Antidepressant Drugs and Health-Related Quality of Life: A Reader's Guide on How to Examine a \"Viral\" Research Paper With a Critical Eye.","authors":"C. Andrade","doi":"10.4088/JCP.22f14527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Antidepressant drugs are effective against depression. They also improve subjective and functional outcomes such as disability, work functioning, social functioning, well-being, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in depressed patients. However, a recent large retrospective cohort study found that depressed subjects who received vs did not receive antidepressants did not differ in improvement in HRQoL, as measured using the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey at the start and at the end of a 2-year period. The authors of the study therefore questioned the benefits of continuation of antidepressant drugs, suggesting a role for nonpharmacological interventions, instead. The study \"went viral\"; its findings were widely disseminated in the mass media and at medical and health care websites for physicians and for the lay public. The study, however, suffered from serious methodological shortcomings. These shortcomings are systematically explained so that readers understand how to critically read a research paper. This is important because uncritical acceptance of the findings of the study can negatively impact attitudes toward antidepressant medication among patients and health care professionals and may even result in decreased medication adherence in patients receiving antidepressant maintenance therapy.","PeriodicalId":20409,"journal":{"name":"Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.22f14527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Antidepressant drugs are effective against depression. They also improve subjective and functional outcomes such as disability, work functioning, social functioning, well-being, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in depressed patients. However, a recent large retrospective cohort study found that depressed subjects who received vs did not receive antidepressants did not differ in improvement in HRQoL, as measured using the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey at the start and at the end of a 2-year period. The authors of the study therefore questioned the benefits of continuation of antidepressant drugs, suggesting a role for nonpharmacological interventions, instead. The study "went viral"; its findings were widely disseminated in the mass media and at medical and health care websites for physicians and for the lay public. The study, however, suffered from serious methodological shortcomings. These shortcomings are systematically explained so that readers understand how to critically read a research paper. This is important because uncritical acceptance of the findings of the study can negatively impact attitudes toward antidepressant medication among patients and health care professionals and may even result in decreased medication adherence in patients receiving antidepressant maintenance therapy.