Meta-Analytic SuperSpreader outlined a disturbing sequence of events leading up to the publication of an article by Andrea Cipriani and colleagues effectively promoting the benefits of antidepressants. Andrea and colleagues are part of an Oxford University Precision Psychiatry ‘lab’. The idea that this article in some way helps move us toward a precision psychiatry is mind-boggling.
Michael Hengartner ended up as the only editor standing for the issue of Frontiers Psychiatry in which the Cipriani article appeared. He wrote a covering editorial for the collection of articles that mentions the Cipriani article and that most readers will think tries hard to get over a ‘decent’ message – there will be more on being decent in a follow-up post.
Antidepressant Prescriptions in Children and Adolescents
The use of antidepressants in children and adolescents has a troubled history, for almost all principles of good evidence-based medicine were violated or compromised. It is a history characterized by systematically biased research, financial conflicts of interest, and professional recklessness (1–3). In 2004, the Lancet Editors (4), in an article titled “Depressing research” bluntly stated that “The story of research into selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use in childhood depression is one of confusion, manipulation, and institutional failure” (p. 1335). It is now well-established that most pediatric antidepressant trials were industry-sponsored and had serious methodological limitations; many trials remained unpublished due to unfavorable results, and those published were mostly ghost-written, selectively reported efficacy outcomes and misrepresented the true rate of treatment-emergent suicidal events (5–9). Drug regulators issued a suicidality warning for pediatric antidepressant use in 2003 (MHRA) and 2004 (FDA) and advised to use fluoxetine only. By consequence, some authors argued that SSRI should be reserved as a second-line option for youth with severe and resistant forms of depression (10).
However, in most countries antidepressant use has considerably increased in children and adolescent over the last 10–15 years (11–13), despite suicidality warnings, the serious limitations of the evidence-base (14), and ongoing controversies surrounding risks and benefits (15) as well as the placebo response (16). The aim of this special topic was thus to provide a collection of articles broadly focused on two main issues; first, on the current scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants, with a special emphasis on suicidality and related regulatory warnings, and, second, on recent trends in prescription rates and patterns of utilization, including antidepressant overuse, and the increasingly medicalized approach to mental health.
Safer and Zito reviewed the efficacy of new-generation antidepressants for pediatric depression. They found no meaningful benefits in children and only marginal benefits in adolescents based on placebo-controlled short-term trials. Moreover, they considered the evidence for maintenance treatment based on discontinuation (placebo-substitution) trials problematic and inconclusive due to high dropout rates, potential withdrawal syndromes that mimic relapse, and relapse rates not dissimilar from the natural course of the disorder.
Boaden et al. conducted a meta-review on the efficacy, tolerability, and suicidality-risk of antidepressants for the treatment of various pediatric disorders. The meta-review found that just a few antidepressants were effective and well-tolerated. For instance, only fluoxetine was more effective than placebo in major depression, and only fluvoxamine and paroxetine were effective in anxiety disorders. Venlafaxine (in major depression) and paroxetine (in anxiety disorders) were associated with significantly increased risk of suicidality. However, of the nine meta-analyses included, only one met criteria of high quality; five were rated moderate quality, one was of low quality and two of critically low quality. The authors further state that the quality of the available evidence is inadequate due to short trial duration, selective reporting and publication bias, and they emphasize the paucity of data on suicidal ideation and behavior in antidepressant trials.
The issue of increased risk of suicidality with antidepressants was specifically addressed in two articles. In the first, Spielmans et al. review the scientific evidence and conclude that the FDA black-box suicidality warning was justified and firmly rooted in solid data from placebo-controlled antidepressant trials. They further detail that prominent claims suggesting that the FDA warning has led to decreasing prescription rates and thus increasing suicide rates were based on methodologically weak and potentially misleading ecological studies.
In the second, Whitely et al. describe how prominent psychiatrists and influential mental health organizations challenged the black-box suicidality warning for adolescents and young adults. The authors argue that various ecological studies were cited misleadingly as evidence that increased antidepressant use reduces youth suicide risk. Contrary to these claims, they further show that, in Australia, both antidepressant use and suicide rates increased substantially from 2008 to 2018.
Another serious safety issue was addressed by Kapra et al.. In their mini review they discuss the evidence for and against a potential effect of antidepressant use during pregnancy on autism spectrum disorders in the offspring. The authors found evidence for an association between prenatal SSRI exposure and an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders based on several observational studies, but caution that causality has not been demonstrated yet due to confounding by indication. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research on this serious safety issue, as accumulating data from animal studies suggest that SSRI exposure may alter normal brain development.
Trends of increasing antidepressant use in young people were addressed in two articles. In the first, Zito et al. analyzed administrative claims of Medicaid-insured youth aged <20 years from 1987 to 2014. During this 28-year period, antidepressant use grew 14-fold. They further show that in 2014, antidepressants were prescribed six times more often for youth in foster care than for their income-eligible Medicaid-counterparts. Off-label prescribing was also very common: a quarter of antidepressant-medicated youth were diagnosed with a behavioral disorder.
In the second, Cosgrove et al. state that antidepressant use in children and adolescents rose substantially over the last 15 years in part due to commercially driven off-label prescriptions, despite ongoing controversy over their effectiveness and safety. From the perspective of institutional corruption, they discuss two drivers of overuse resulting from an increasingly medicalised approach to mental health. The first is the empirically unsupported demand for depression screenings in youth and the second the emphasis on scaling up diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders as part of a renewed Global Mental Health Movement.
Last but not least, Locher et al. make an interesting case for open-label placebos in the treatment of chronic pain conditions in children and adolescents as an alternative to long-term antidepressant use. The authors acknowledge that this approach still lacks empirical evidence, but also stress that open-label placebos constitute a promising avenue for future research as they may help to mitigate the serious adverse effects of antidepressants.
In conclusion, the articles in this special topic demonstrate that pediatric antidepressant use is still controversial. Although antidepressant use in children and adolescents has increased substantially over the last 10–15 years, convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks is lacking and treatment-emergent suicidality remains a major concern. Overuse and off-label prescribing are pressing issues, and there certainly is a need for safer and more effective treatments, both pharmacological and psychological (17). It is hoped that this article collection will spur innovative research and critical discussion.
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
I thank David Healy and Irving Kirsch for their help in recruiting authors for this special topic.
References
- Jureidini JN, McHenry LB. Key opinion leaders and paediatric antidepressant overprescribing. Psychother Psychosom. (2009) 78:197–201. doi: 10.1159/000214440
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Leo J. The SSRI trials in children: disturbing implications for academic medicine. Ethical Hum Psychol Psychiatry. (2006) 8:29–41. doi: 10.1891/ehpp.8.1.29
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Raz A. Perspectives on the efficacy of antidepressants for child and adolescent depression. PLoS Med. (2006) 3:e9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030009
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Lancet Editors. Depressing research. Lancet.(2004) 363:1335. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16080-7
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text
- Jureidini JN, Doecke CJ, Mansfield PR, Haby MM, Menkes DB, Tonkin AL. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for children and adolescents. BMJ.(2004) 328:879–83. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7444.879
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Jureidini JN, McHenry LB, Mansfield PR. Clinical trials and drug promotion: selective reporting of study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med. (2008) 20:73–81. doi: 10.3233/JRS-2008-0426
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Jureidini JN, Amsterdam JD, McHenry LB. The citalopram CIT-MD-18 pediatric depression trial: deconstruction of medical ghostwriting, data mischaracterisation and academic malfeasance. Int J Risk Saf Med. (2016) 28:33–43. doi: 10.3233/JRS-160671
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Le Noury J, Nardo JM, Healy D, Jureidini J, Raven M, Tufanaru C, et al. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. BMJ. (2015) 351:h4320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4320
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. (2004) 363:1341–5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16043-1
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Cohen D. Should the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in child and adolescent depression be banned? Psychother Psychosom.(2007) 76:5–14. doi: 10.1159/000096360
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Bachmann CJ, Aagaard L, Burcu M, Glaeske G, Kalverdijk LJ, Petersen I, et al. Trends and patterns of antidepressant use in children and adolescents from five western countries, 2005-2012. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. (2016) 26:411–9. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.02.001
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- John A, Marchant AL, Fone DL, McGregor JI, Dennis MS, Tan JO, et al. Recent trends in primary-care antidepressant prescribing to children and young people: an e-cohort study. Psychol Med. (2016) 46:3315–27. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002099
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Schroder C, Dorks M, Kollhorst B, Blenk T, Dittmann RW, Garbe E, et al. Outpatient antidepressant drug use in children and adolescents in Germany between 2004 and 2011. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. (2017) 26:170–9. doi: 10.1002/pds.4138
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Healy D, Le Noury J, Jureidini J. Paediatric antidepressants: benefits and risks. Int J Risk Saf Med.(2019) 30:1–7. doi: 10.3233/JRS-180746
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Cipriani A, Zhou X, Del Giovane C, Hetrick SE, Qin B, Whittington C, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. Lancet.(2016) 388:881–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30385-3
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Cohen D, Deniau E, Maturana A, Tanguy ML, Bodeau N, Labelle R, et al. Are child and adolescent responses to placebo higher in major depression than in anxiety disorders? A systematic review of placebo-controlled trials. PLoS ONE. (2008) 3:e2632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002632
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
- Zhou X, Teng T, Zhang Y, Del Giovane C, Furukawa TA, Weisz JR, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. (2020) 7:581–601. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Keywords: antidepressant, pediatric, prescribing, children, adolescents, efficacy, safety, suicidality
Citation: Hengartner MP (2020) Editorial: Antidepressant Prescriptions in Children and Adolescents. Front. Psychiatry 11:600283. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.600283
Received: 29 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020;
Published: 30 October 2020.
“Precision Psychiatry”
Fantasy, Delusion, Oxymoron or skilful propaganda?
“There is no need for propaganda to be rich in intellectual content”. Joseph Goebbels.
Pain News Network …
In one settlement alone, GSK was fined $3 billion for encouraging doctors to prescribe its antidepressants to children.
“This has been a deeply disappointing matter for GSK,” chief executive Sir Andrew Witty said in a formal apology to the Chinese government in 2014.
GlaxoSmithKline Most Heavily Fined Drug Company — Pain News Network
Researchers looked at state and federal settlements from 2003 to 2016 and found that almost every large pharmaceutical company had paid a fine for illegal activity.
The biggest transgressor was GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which paid nearly $9.8 billion to settle 27 cases brought against it for bribery, corruption, improper marketing, pricing violations and selling adulterated drugs. In one settlement alone, GSK was fined $3 billion for encouraging doctors to prescribe its antidepressants to children.
Drug company executives rarely serve prison time for illegal activities and the large fines do not appear to be much of a deterrent against unethical behavior. The nearly $9.8 billion paid by GSK amounts to less than 2 percent of its total revenues during the study period. On average, GSK’s illegal activities went on for over seven years before the company stopped them, according to the JAMA study.
GSK did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales | GlaxoSmithKline | The Guardian
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled “Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart”.
IMPROVING BRAIN HEALTH: THE FUTURE IN MIND – (OxPPL)
recovery&renewal Retweeted
MISSD
@MISSDFoundation
Despite limited evidence of efficacy & mounting safety concerns, researchers find “the use of drugs from 2 or more psychotropic classes has increased among US youths.”
Polypharmacy increases kids’ risk of #akathisia that can cause #suicide.
Increasing Numbers of Children Prescribed Multiple Psychiatric Medications
Despite the heightened risk and little evidence of benefit, children are increasingly being prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs.
By
Peter Simons
November 17, 2020
https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/increasing-numbers-children-prescribed-multiple-psychiatric-medications/
According to researchers, children are increasingly prescribed multiple different psychiatric medications (a practice known as polypharmacy). The use of antipsychotics in children has grown significantly since 1999. Most concerningly, even children between the ages of 0-4 are receiving polypharmacy regimens.
“The use of medication from 2 or more psychotropic classes, i.e., polypharmacy, has increased among US youths despite limited evidence of efficacy and mounting safety concerns,” the researchers write.
https://oxfordhealthbrc.nihr.ac.uk/our-work/oxppl/patient-involvement-and-ethics/
We are also invested in examining and addressing the ethical parameters of precision psychiatry. For example, we recognise how important it is that treatment options are accessible, beneficial, and trusted by patients. We also understand the importance of ensuring that patient data is used appropriately and effectively. As part of ongoing projects, we will therefore be considering ethical issues, patient perspectives and trust in precision psychiatry.
in the future, “Evidence of the efficacy and safety is needed to guide psychotropic polypharmacy practices.”
a ‘decent’ message –
The implications of this kind of testing spreading into family lives; schools etc are horrendous
Scientists use blood test to predict who is likely to develop psychotic disorders
Scientists have discovered that testing the levels of certain proteins in blood samples can predict whether a person at risk of psychosis is likely to develop a psychotic disorder years later.
The study is published in the current edition of JAMA Psychiatry and was led by researchers from RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences.
Based on certain criteria, such as mild or brief psychotic symptoms, some people are considered to be clinically at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia. However, only 20% to 30% of these people will actually go on to develop a psychotic disorder.
The researchers analysed blood samples taken from people at clinical high risk of psychosis. These individuals were followed up for several years to see who did and did not develop a psychotic disorder.
After assessing the proteins in blood samples and using machine learning to analyse this data, the scientists were able to find patterns of proteins in the early blood samples that could predict who did and did not develop a psychotic disorder at follow-up.
Many of these proteins are involved in inflammation, suggesting that there are early changes in the immune system in people who go on to develop a psychotic disorder. The findings also suggest that it is possible to predict their outcomes using blood samples taken several years in advance.
The most accurate test was based on the 10 most predictive proteins. It correctly identified those who would go on to develop a psychotic disorder in 93% of high-risk cases, and it correctly identified those who would not in 80% of cases.
“Ideally, we would like to prevent psychotic disorders, but that requires being able to accurately identify who is most at risk,” said Professor David Cotter, the study’s senior and corresponding author and professor of molecular psychiatry at RCSI.
“Our research has shown that, with help from machine learning, analysis of protein levels in blood samples can predict who is at truly at risk and could possibly benefit from preventive treatments. We now need to study these markers in other people at high risk of psychosis to confirm these findings.”
A patent application has been filed, and the research team is working to commercialise this research through licensing or partnering with industry.
This research was funded by the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) Project (Project EU-GEI) from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, by the UK Medical Research Council and by the Irish Health Research Board.
David Mongan, RCSI PhD student and Irish Clinical Academic Training (ICAT) Fellow, analysed the data with the supervision of Professor David Cotter and Professor Mary Cannon from the RCSI Department of Psychiatry. The ICAT programme is supported by the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive National Doctors Training and Planning and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division, Northern Ireland. The blood samples were analysed in the UCD Conway Institute under the supervision of Dr Gerard Cagney.
quote by Andreas Cipriani
it is important to involve people who have lived experience of antidepressants and collect their feedback. This is what we are doing with the SUSANA survey (Survey for Understanding the Side effects of ANtidepressants in Adults) an international survey about the side effects of antidepressants in depression.
Posted by Peter Gordon (ex) psychiatrist https://holeousia.com/2019/05/28/susana-survey/The SUSANA Survey -I have recently completed this survey.
I have over twenty years experience of antidepressants as both a patient and as a prescriber so this survey was nothing but welcomed by me. However I immediately met with a divide:
So I entered as a “patient” – though I have been taking an SSRI antidepressant for over 20 years and no longer see any doctor about this. My prescription is considered by my profession to be for “maintenance treatment.”
The next question I could not answer. I was started on an SSRI antidepressant for “Social anxiety disorder”. It was only in withdrawal, as a result of the physical dependence on my SSRI, that I ever had low mood:
The survey then asked about duration of treatment. The highest category was for 4 years and above. I wondered how many, like me, might have been taking an antidepressant for considerably longer? This survey would not quantify such experience.
The hardest part of the survey was still to come and based on the Survey title:
This gave 15 options that had to be rated in a defined fashion. It was based on a grid. My lived experience of an antidepressant did not fit this defined grid and any “rating” from this grid would not realistically represent my lived experience of a prescribed antidepressant. This troubled me as a scientist, doctor, philosopher and once patient. It is why I have written this post
It is vital to note that the whole survey excluded any experiences of dependence on, and withdrawal from, antidepressants.
I nearly died from SSRI withdrawal due to akathisia and suicidality. This study has excluded such experiences.
In the free-text box at the end of the survey I shared these comments:
I have decided to write an open letter to two of those involved in this survey: Professor Andrea Cipriani (for the Scientific Board) and ‘The Mental Elf’ (Minervation Ltd) who is disseminating it across the world. The full team is:
This is the open letter that I have sent:
28th May 2019,
Bridge of Allan.
Dear Professor Cipriani and Dr André Tomlin,
SUSANA Survey:
This is an open letter to you which I have shared on my blog.
Thank you for undertaking this survey. It has always been my view that science cannot be science without listening and including lived experience. It was most welcome to appreciate that this is also clearly the view of the Scientific Advisory Board for the SUSANA Survey.
I wanted to share my experience of completing the survey.
I am writing to ask if you might consider withdrawing the survey to allow it to be re-designed and replaced with a survey based on the input of those with lived experience of antidepressants. Without such input I fear that this world-wide study will not be valid.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind wishes
Dr Peter J Gordon
NHS psychiatrist of 25 years
GMC: 3468861
9 Replies to “SUSANA survey”
Marion Brown says:1 year ago
Reply
Thank you for compiling this comment Peter – and for writing to Mental Elf and Andrea Cipriani. There are many people who have attempted this new SUSANA survey, disseminated widely on Twitter over the holiday weekend, and have been dismayed and concerned at its clearly apparent flaws..
As a psychotherapist (now retired) I have become extremely concerned to see what is happening to people who are put on ‘safe and effective’ (sic) antidepressants, commonly started when they visit their GP – now it seems for all manner of reasons. Certainly not ‘mentally ill’ – until an antidepressant is prescribed anyway – and they develop all manner of other symptoms and adverse/side effects of the antidepressant …. which then leads on to further medications and developments of their ‘illness’ (which was never there in the first place).
I have tested out the survey and found it to be very crude and the responses ‘rigged’ and restricted in order to ‘harvest’ notionally ‘preferred’ side-effects.
I consider this SUSANA survey to be seriously misleading and unethical.
Snow-Leavis says:1 year ago
Reply
Thank you Marion.
If anybody wants to add comments about the SUSANA survey please do.
I would reckon that many/most might prefer to do so anonymously. If you want to do so please e-mail me: peter@holeousia.com and I will ensure there is absolutely no identifiable material.
Sharing thoughts on this survey is about trying to help science and not in any way trying to hinder it: to try and help make this Survey as relevant, realistic and valid as possible.
aye Peter
Bridge of Allan
Scotland
Sidlaw Dreams says:1 year ago
Reply
The survey is looking only for people treated for depression, it would appear.
“You can participate if: …………….you were/are currently taking antidepressants for depression……..”
Clearly, by excluding those prescribed antidepressants for, say, social anxiety order or pain will be excluded and otherwise useful data on side effects of those drugs will not be taken into account.
Snow-Leavis says:1 year ago
Reply
Thank you Sidlaw Dreams.
I agree: “by excluding those prescribed antidepressants for, say, social anxiety order or pain will be excluded and otherwise useful data on side effects of those drugs will not be taken into account.”
aye Dr Peter Gordon
Susanne says:1 year ago
Reply
According to the publicity this project has taken two years to set up! It is low level student level stuff or is deliberately scewed – the information they claim to be collecting is already available – it would be hard to believethey have not already trawled through it. What is behind it?
Snow-Leavis says:1 year ago
Reply
Thank you Susanne.
I have just sent this e-mail. I am of the view that all that contributes to science needs to be considered openly:
28th May 2019,
Bridge of Allan.
Dear Professor Cipriani and Dr André Tomlin,
SUSANA Survey:
In the short time since I sent my open letter to you (that neither of you have acknowledged despite requesting a ‘read receipt’) the introduction explaining the basis, purpose and goals of the SUSANA study has been significantly changed:
From this:
To this:
There seems to be no explanation to those that are invited to participate in this study why such significant changes have been made. There is also no explanation to those many hundreds who have already completed this survey. Is this ethical?
In the “new” introduction. The Scientific Board states:
“Of course, there are important side effects that are rare or less common (such as suicidality, withdrawal symptoms, numbness, etc)”
I had understood that this remains a matter of scientific contention. The Mental Elf has covered this issue a number of times (Jauhar and Hayes)
So please can the Scientific Board for the SUSANA study inform all potential participants the evidence that validates this recently added statement/explanation: “Of course, there are important side effects that are rare or less common (such as suicidality, withdrawal symptoms, numbness, etc)”
Yours sincerely,
Peter Gordon
Dr Peter J Gordon
GMC: 3468861
Fiona French says:1 year ago
Reply
Thank you for sharing your concerns with this survey. I myself tried to complete it. I have nearly 4 decades experience of consuming antidepressants and have been drug free for 5 years. I have never benefitted from these drugs and have suffered a variety of serious side effects. I found the questionnaire impossible to complete. It appeared to me to be poorly designed, I spent 20 years working in research, conducting questionnaire surveys, mostly for the Scottish Government. I was disappointed that there were various textual errors which should have been corrected after proof-reading. I was dismayed that the introductory preamble was changed as you have described after so many respondents had already completed the survey and that the additional text contained yet another textual error. I was even more dismayed that withdrawal symptoms were stated to be rare or less common than other side effects. I would have liked to share my many experiences of consuming and withdrawing from antidepressants but would only do so where the research instrument is of good quality. Without a good quality research instrument, the results will be of little value.
Susanne says:1 year ago
Reply
Peter – surely the NIHR should be checking their application for funding?
I can’t copy and past the whole article – here are some snipetts . Seems Andrea C with his love of logarithms is adding to the problem – the essence of a real human being is being lost in data and the sort of exposures highlighted in this article
Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences
Dumas-Mallet, Estelle PhD; Gonon, Francois PhDAuthor Information
Harvard Review of Psychiatry: 11/12 2020 – Volume 28 – Issue 6 – p 395-403
doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000276
OPEN
Metrics
Abstract
Most experts in the field of psychiatry recognize that neuroscience advances have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The main message delivered to laypeople, however, is that mental disorders are brain diseases cured by scientifically designed medications. Here we describe how this misleading message is generated. We summarize the academic studies describing how biomedical observations are often misrepresented in the scientific literature through various forms of data embellishment, publication biases favoring initial and positive studies, improper interpretations, and exaggerated conclusions. These misrepresentations also affect biological psychiatry and are spread through mass media documents. Exacerbated competition, hyperspecialization, and the need to obtain funding for research projects might drive scientists to misrepresent their findings. Moreover, journalists are unaware that initial studies, even when positive and promising, are inherently uncertain. Journalists preferentially cover them and almost never inform the public when those studies are disconfirmed by subsequent research. This explains why reductionist theories about mental health often persist in mass media even though the scientific claims that have been put forward to support them have long been contradicted. These misrepresentations affect the care of patients. Indeed, studies show that a neuro-essentialist conceptualization of mental disorders negatively affects several aspects of stigmatization, reduces the chances of patients’ healing, and overshadows psychotherapeutic and social approaches that have been found effective in alleviating mental suffering. Public information about mental health should avoid these reporting biases and give equal consideration to the biological, psychological, and social aspects of mental health.
On 31 October 2019, two psychiatrists—Caleb Gardner and Arthur Kleinman—published an opinion article in the New England Journal of Medicine.1 They wrote:
Ironically, although these limitations [of “biologic treatments”] are widely recognized by experts in the field, the prevailing message to the public and the rest of medicine remains that the solution to psychological problems involves matching the “right” diagnosis with the “right” medication. Consequently, psychiatric diagnoses and medications proliferate under the banner of scientific medicine, though there is no comprehensive biologic understanding of either the causes or the treatments of psychiatric disorders.
Like other leaders in the field, Gardner and Kleinman admit that the neurobiological analysis of psychiatric disorders has not yet been translated into improved clinical care.2,3 Moreover, they acknowledge, for the first time in a prestigious biomedical journal, that psychiatrists deliver another message to their non-psychiatric peers in medicine and to laypeople.
To summarize our approach here, we do not aim to fuel the debates that split psychiatry and related disciplines involved in mental health—in particular, the relationships between social sciences, psychology, neuroscience, and biological psychiatry (see In particular, the value of negative findings is often underestimated, although they serve the goal of identifying and then discarding unfounded hypotheses, such as the serotonin deficit theory of depression, which has often been invoked in advertisements for antidepressants.11
THE DISTORTIONS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
Data Embellishments
Fraud consists in fabricating observations to validate a theory, but cases of blatant fraud are extremely rare.
Preferential Publication of Positive Results
All disciplines combined, the percentage of scientific articles reporting results that confirmed researchers’ hypotheses increased from 70% in 1990 to 86% in 2007.18 Considered together, psychiatry and psychology have the highest positive outcome rate of all scientific disciplines examined by Fanelli.19 The preferential publication of positive biomedical findings might result from two trends: either researchers choose not to submit their negative results for publication, or editors reject them more frequently.20–22
Inaccurate Description of the Methods
In scientific publications, the methods must be described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the observations and to provide readers with all the information needed to judge the quality and implications of the results. Unfortunately, the description of the methods is often vague or incomplete.
Misrepresentation of the Data
Within individual scientific articles there is often a huge gap between the observations per se and their presentation or interpretation—performance.”
MASS MEDIA ARE UNAWARE OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS
Initial Scientific Findings Are Uncertain
Because positive findings are preferentially published in biomedical journals,
Mass Media Preferentially Cover Initial Studies
were echoed by the press (3 articles each). All but one failed to mention that the subsequent study disconfirmed a previous study.28
Journalistic standards, which favor novelty and attractiveness, explain in part the journalists’ preference for initial studies.
newspapers further accentuate publication biases by almost exclusively covering studies reporting a positive effect.44
Mass Media Rarely Inform the Public About the Uncertainty of Initial Studies
If the initial studies published in scientific journals are, as we have seen, uncertain, communications in conferences are even more so. Newspapers do not hesitate, however, to cover them:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISREPRESENTING BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Implications for Attitudes and Beliefs About Mental Disorders
Misrepresenting biological psychiatry to the public bolsters the view that “mental disorders are increasingly conceptualized as biomedical diseases,
Social Prevention Is Kept in the Background
Mental disorders run in families. Until recently, this indisputable fact has been mainly interpreted as evidence that mental disorders are genetic diseases……..
“There are few (if any) clear examples of gene by environment interactions in psychiatry, and their scope for informing either our understanding of disease pathology or clinical practice remains limited at present.”72(p 1092)
Fourth, recent attempts to disentangle genetic from environmental components in the etiology of mental disorders have taken advantage of natural experiments and provided convincing evidence that psychosocial conditions play a major causal role, at least for some disorders, such as the familial transmission of major depression.74
Altogether, recent genetic and epidemiologic studies confirm the importance of environmental factors in the etiology of common mental disorders.
Implications on Health and Research Policies
In democratic societies scientific arguments are often mobilized to legitimize political decisions. A qualitative survey among decision makers in the German political and administrative system showed that mass media have a substantial impact on policy processes.82
POSSIBLE CAUSES
Scientists Are Pushed to Publish Exciting Findings and to Embellish Them
Biomedical publications often state that: (1) previous studies on the same issue have Surveys of researchers and journalists have shown that the relationships between them are increasingly smooth and positive;88 interviewed scientists expressed their feeling that the coverage of their research positively affects their careers and facilitates the funding of their research.88,89
Scientific institutions have contributed to this rhetorical escalation. First, they favor disciplines and might become less sensitive to ethical concerns.
Journalists Unwittingly Exacerbate the Distortions Already Present in the Biomedical Literature
As described in the first section, the presentation of biomedical observations in scientific publications is often altered by different forms of distortion: partial falsification of the results, various data embellishments, publication biases favoring initial and positive studies, citation biases, improper interpretation, and exaggerated conclusions. Press releases, issued by prestigious biomedical journals and scientific institutions, often exacerbate these distortions.
Two surveys of scientific journalists highlight this situation. …. ascribed the lack of validity to blatant fraud. Even those with a strong scientific background
Why Does the Neuro-Essentialist Discourse Gain Ground in Democratic Societies?
The neuro-essentialist discourse pushes aside a more integrated conceptualization of psychiatric disorders (often referred to as the biopsychosocial model), although neuroscience advances have not yet contributed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.1–3 Therefore, one might wonder why this reductionist discourse is so successful in democratic societies, especially since we now have strong evidence that psychosocial risk factors play an important role in the etiology of common mental disorders. Most of these factors are, in fact, linked to the relative economic level of the subjects: the greater the inequalities in a territory, the higher the prevalence of mental disorders in the most disadvantaged population………..
The authors thank Thomas Boraud for his support and advice.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
This article shocked me! Soon antidepressants will be prescribed without even asking about the problem! It’s scary … Maybe it’s because antidepressants are big business and no one wants to stop prescribing them. And even in our century it has become fashionable to say that you have some kind of psychological illness and sit on antidepressants. I have an acquaintance? who did it on purpose. But the worst thing here is that children are suffering from this and their number is growing. And how can children under the age of four sit on antidepressants?