Abstract
With increasing numbers of treatment options available for patients with major depression over the last decade and the growing body of evidence describing their efficacy and safety, clinicians often find it difficult to determine the best and most appropriate evidence-based treatment for each patient. Systematic reviews utilizing statistical methods that synthesize and evaluate data from a number of studies have become increasingly more available over the past decade. We review major findings and lessons learned from salient examples of quantitative analyses of antidepressant research and provide recommendations for meta-analysts, journal and grant reviewers, and research 'consumers' (ie, clinicians) for conducting, reporting, and evaluating such analyses.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 445-460 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Neuropsychopharmacology |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 1 2005 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Antidepressive agents
- Evidence-based medicine
- Meta-analysis
- Quality control
- Randomized controlled trials
- Research design
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pharmacology
Cite this
Comparing the effects of antidepressants : Consensus guidelines for evaluating quantitative reviews of antidepressant efficacy. / Lieberman, Jeffery A.; Greenhouse, Joel; Hamer, Robert M.; Krishnan, K. Ranga; Nemeroff, Charles; Sheehan, David V.; Thase, Michael E.; Keller, Martin B.
In: Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 30, No. 3, 01.03.2005, p. 445-460.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing the effects of antidepressants
T2 - Consensus guidelines for evaluating quantitative reviews of antidepressant efficacy
AU - Lieberman, Jeffery A.
AU - Greenhouse, Joel
AU - Hamer, Robert M.
AU - Krishnan, K. Ranga
AU - Nemeroff, Charles
AU - Sheehan, David V.
AU - Thase, Michael E.
AU - Keller, Martin B.
PY - 2005/3/1
Y1 - 2005/3/1
N2 - With increasing numbers of treatment options available for patients with major depression over the last decade and the growing body of evidence describing their efficacy and safety, clinicians often find it difficult to determine the best and most appropriate evidence-based treatment for each patient. Systematic reviews utilizing statistical methods that synthesize and evaluate data from a number of studies have become increasingly more available over the past decade. We review major findings and lessons learned from salient examples of quantitative analyses of antidepressant research and provide recommendations for meta-analysts, journal and grant reviewers, and research 'consumers' (ie, clinicians) for conducting, reporting, and evaluating such analyses.
AB - With increasing numbers of treatment options available for patients with major depression over the last decade and the growing body of evidence describing their efficacy and safety, clinicians often find it difficult to determine the best and most appropriate evidence-based treatment for each patient. Systematic reviews utilizing statistical methods that synthesize and evaluate data from a number of studies have become increasingly more available over the past decade. We review major findings and lessons learned from salient examples of quantitative analyses of antidepressant research and provide recommendations for meta-analysts, journal and grant reviewers, and research 'consumers' (ie, clinicians) for conducting, reporting, and evaluating such analyses.
KW - Antidepressive agents
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Quality control
KW - Randomized controlled trials
KW - Research design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13944265657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13944265657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/sj.npp.1300571
DO - 10.1038/sj.npp.1300571
M3 - Article
C2 - 15647752
AN - SCOPUS:13944265657
VL - 30
SP - 445
EP - 460
JO - Neuropsychopharmacology
JF - Neuropsychopharmacology
SN - 0893-133X
IS - 3
ER -