Cited by 158Cancer survivorship and careTreatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and Access

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

Open access
Ostuzzi, Giovanni, Matcham, Faith, Dauchy, Sarah, Barbui, Corrado, Hotopf, Matthew·2018·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer (Review)

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd011006.pub3

Cites

153 of 153 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?

  • Evidence of enduring effects of conventional psycho- or pharmacotherapy is limited or ambiguous.

    “Evidence of enduring effects of conventional psycho-or pharmacotherapy is limited or ambiguous (Akechi et al., 2008;Ostuzzi et al., 2018).”

    From Psychedelics for the treatment of depression, anxiety, and existential distress in patients with a terminal illness: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Ostuzzi et al., 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says no trials assessed antidepressant follow-up response beyond 12 weeks, supporting limited evidence for enduring effects of pharmacotherapy. The review concerns people with cancer, so it does not establish the broader, unqualified claim about conventional therapy; it does not assess psychotherapy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Cochrane review concluded that the evidence for medications compared with placebo was of low certainty based on the limited number and low quality of studies.

    “The Cochrane review concluded that the evidence for medications compared with placebo was of low certainty based on the limited number and low quality of studies.”

    From Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update (2023) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Quality of the evidence section attributes uncertainty to poor study quality, high risk of bias, and small trials, supporting the stated reasons. But it rates confidence in all main outcomes as “very low,” not “low”; the Certainty of the evidence section also uses “very low.” (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A 2018 Cochrane review of antidepressant use in cancer patients with MDD found no difference between antidepressants (as a class) and placebo on symptoms of depression at 6-12 weeks.

    “Pharmacologic management was investigated in a 2018 Cochrane review of antidepressant use in cancer patients with MDD and no difference between antidepressants (as a class) and placebo on symptoms of depression at 6-12 weeks was found.57”

    From Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update (2023) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Main results report no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on depressive symptoms at 6–12 weeks, based on very-low-certainty evidence. But the Types of participants section includes people with adjustment disorder, dysthymia, or depressive symptoms without a formal major-depression diagnosis, as well as those with MDD. The cited result therefore is not specific to cancer patients with MDD. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Head-to-head comparisons of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants showed no difference.

    “Also, head-to-head comparisons of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants showed no difference.57”
  • The 2018 Cochrane review found null findings for antidepressant use for MDD in patients with cancer at 6-12 weeks.

    “a conclusion informed by the 2018 Cochrane review of null findings for antidepressant use for MDD in patients with cancer at 6-12 weeks, a sufficient interval in pharmacologic trials for effects to be detected.57”

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

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 157 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ostuzzi, G., Matcham, F., Dauchy, S., Barbui, C., & Hotopf, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-23
Volume
2018
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2940589604
Cited by
158
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10102)
  • King's College London
  • Evidence Synthesis Programme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
antidepressants, depression, cancer, cancer-related depression, antidepressant efficacy, antidepressant safety

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