Cited by 2,009Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-analysis

Open access
Fournier, Jay C., DeRubeis, Robert J., Hollon, Steven D., Dimidjian, Sona, Amsterdam, Jay D., Shelton, Richard C., Fawcett, Jan·2010·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Antidepressant medications represent the best established treatment for major depressive disorder, but there is little evidence that they have a specific pharmacological effect relative to pill placebo for patients with less severe depression. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of major or minor depressive disorder were selected. Studies were included if their authors provided the requisite original data, they comprised adult outpatients, they included a medication vs placebo comparison for at least 6 weeks, they did not exclude patients on the basis of a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Data from 6 studies (718 patients) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual patient-level data were obtained from study authors. RESULTS: Medication vs placebo differences varied substantially as a function of baseline severity. Among patients with HDRS scores below 23, Cohen d effect sizes for the difference between medication and placebo were estimated to be less than 0.20 (a standard definition of a small effect). Estimates of the magnitude of the superiority of medication over placebo increased with increases in baseline depression severity and crossed the threshold defined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for a clinically significant difference at a baseline HDRS score of 25. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1943

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Antidepressants have been demonstrated efficient in treating MDD.

    “antidepressants have been demonstrated efficient in treating MDD”

    From SSRI Treatment Response Prediction in Depression Based on Brain Activation by Emotional Stimuli (2020) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Introduction says antidepressants are a standard treatment for MDD and have been shown superior to placebo in controlled trials. But the Discussion qualifies their efficacy: the drug–placebo advantage was large for patients with very severe symptoms and negligible for those with less severe symptoms. The unqualified claim omits that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fournier and colleagues meta-analysed trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and estimated the effect size for mild to severe depression ranged from -0.17 to -0.11, which is lower than the effect size for smoking cessation.

    “Fournier and colleagues meta-analysed trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and estimated the effect size.45 For mild to severe depression the effect estimates ranged from -0.17 to -0.11; this is lower than the effect size for smoking cessation.”

    From Change in mental health after smoking cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Methods > Participants passage confirms that Fournier and colleagues pooled trial data and estimated antidepressant effect sizes, but only three of the six trials used the SSRI paroxetine; the other three used the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine. The citation is attached to the first sentence, not the subsequent effect-size range or smoking-cessation comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A substantial portion of the perceived therapeutic benefit of SSRIs in double-blind RCTs may stem from placebo responses rather than the drug itself.

    “For SSRIs, researchers have argued that a substantial portion of the perceived therapeutic benefit in double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may stem from placebo responses rather than the drug itself (Sugarman et al., 2014; Fournier et al., 2010; Kirsch, 2014; Moncrieff and Kirsch, 2015).”

    From Revisiting the SSRI vs. placebo debate in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: the role of expectancy effects, neural responsivity, and monoamine transporters (2025) · cites this paper as Fournier et al., 2010

    The Results (Drug Class; Baseline Severity and Symptom Change, pages not provided) include trials of the SSRI paroxetine and find that medication’s advantage over placebo was small at lower baseline depression severity. This supports the possibility that much of the observed improvement in those trials was not attributable to the drug, but the citing sentence omits the severity qualification: the paper finds a substantial drug–placebo benefit in patients with very severe depression. Its analysis also includes a non-SSRI antidepressant, so it does not establish the claim for SSRIs generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The introduction and widespread use of SSRI and psychological therapy including CBT meant that well tolerated and effective treatments for depression and anxiety disorders became available in primary care, widening the group of individuals eligible for treatment.

    “The introduction and widespread use of selective serotonine uptake inhibitors (SSRI) [22, 23] and psychological therapy including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) [24, 25] meant that well tolerated and effective treatments for depression and anxiety disorders became available in primary care, widening the group of individuals eligible for treatment.”

    From Trends in psychiatric diagnoses, medications and psychological therapies in a large Swedish region: A population-based study (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There are differences in individual response to antidepressants.

    “there are differences in individual response”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]Depression Guideline Panel Depression in primary care: Vol. 2. Treatment of major depression Clinical Practice Guideline No. 5. AHCPR Publication No. 93-0551 Rockville, MD U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 1993

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fournier, J. C., DeRubeis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Dimidjian, S., Amsterdam, J. D., Shelton, R. C., & Fawcett, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2010-01-06
Volume
303
Issue
1
Pages
47
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2004762037
Cited by
2,009
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 134 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 143 · 2017: 128 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 149 · 2014: 154 · 2013: 170 · 2012: 172
FWCI
144.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • Universiteit Maastricht
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K24MH001741, R10 MH50129, R01MH060998, K02MH001697, R10MH055875, R10MH055877)
  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
antidepressants, major depressive disorder, depression severity, placebo response, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, treatment effect heterogeneity, mild depression, antidepressant efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Placebo Effect, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review