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

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Am I allowed to suggest more complexity in people's analyses when they lazily dismiss things that I happen to have the experience to evaluate and have already done so?

[substitute.livejournal.com]

You know, the insulting language actually does upset me, no joke. I'm knee-jerk, I call people "freaks," I'm lazy. Thanks, I feel great now.

At this point I have corrected my original post, explained the reason for my reaction, and accepted and welcomed critical and useful information. You are indeed more than allowed to suggest a better analysis and I appreciate the one I got.

Since I didn't send my post to you for peer review (ha) I am reduced to explaining why I took the position I did. I'm sorry that's unsatisfactory, but I can't add much to what I've already said.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Either don't dish it out (e.g.,"turned medicine into a wikiLOL or a club for a particular point of view") or be prepared to take it. And I really do get tired of all the Wikipedia-bashing (not from you in particular, I mean, just in general), speaking as someone who's invested a lot of time and energy into Wikipedia and knows how well Wikipedia's peer review process works most of the time (not that there aren't embarrassing mistakes, but the same could be said about many scientific journals.)

[substitute.livejournal.com]

I don't intend to use that kind of bruising language on you personally, and I hope you won't do so with me again.

It's not something I'm prepared to take from a friend, especially over a harsh remark about a publisher, and I do consider you a friend.

If you genuinely see me as a lazy knee-jerk bigot, then I really don't know what to say other than "that's incredibly depressing."