The antidepressant-debunking study

[substitute]

There was a news release today about a study that appears to show the uselessness of popular antidepressants.

This was reported in the Guardian, among other places. The publication can be read here.

There are problems, as summarized:

1. PlOS is not an academic peer-reviewed journal. edit: They are in fact peer-reviewed, based on better information I have received by comments. Read the threads. They say they are peer-reviewed, but when you read their FAQ, you'll see this: "We involve the academic community in our peer review process as much as possible. After professional staff have determined that the paper falls within the scope of the journal, and is of a minimum acceptable quality, decisions on whether to send a paper out for in-depth review are made via a collaboration between experienced, professional editors who work full time at PLoS, and academic editors who are experts in their field."
   
   I'm not saying this is Wikipedia, but it's not the same thing as a traditional journal, either.
   
   
2. It's one study. Beware of an equivalency between "one metastudy showed that these three or four drugs didn't show a good outcome under these conditions" and "antidepressants don't work."
   
   
3. The study measured outcomes at six weeks. That isn't very long in a depression treatment, whether you're using Prozac or a trampoline.

That having been said, anything that keeps family doctors from throwing the best-advertised drug at every problem is going to be helpful at this juncture. And using any kind of medication (except possibly the trampoline) without counseling is, well, crazy.

Comments

[substitute.livejournal.com]

As someone who worked as a professional copy editor at a medical journal for years, I represent that remark.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Well, I was talking about the people who *run* the publishing companies, and there are situations where even with a "professional" organization being involved (e.g., ACM-organized conferences in computer science), copy editing can be an issue (where by "an issue" I mean "something that never happens".)

[substitute.livejournal.com]

Don't get me started on the decline of copy editing or I will immediately turn into a 100-year-old man waving his cane like grampa Simpson.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Well, didn't you read my post about how I wanted to quit grad school in order to become a copy editor for CS conference proceedings?

[substitute.livejournal.com]

First Wikipedia, and now you want to volunteer to copy edit?

Are you repeating some kind of abuse here?

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping I could get them to pay me, sort of like being a professional submissive (but not really, since I'd get to be dominant by messing with other people's writing.)

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

And if I could get paid $30/hour with health insurance to edit Wikipedia 40 hours a week, I would do it.