Cited by 13Treatment of Major DepressionHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health Treatment and Access

One step closer to personalised prescribing of antidepressants: using real-world data together with patients and clinicians' preferences

Open access
Kernot, Catherine, Tomlinson, Anneka, Chevance, Astrid, Cipriani, Andrea·2019·Evidence Based Mental Health

Abstract

Antidepressants for many decades have been shown to be an effective treatment for depressive disorder.1 Approximately 80% of people with depressive disorder in the UK will have been prescribed an antidepressant within the first year following diagnosis.2 Indeed, about 71 million prescriptions for antidepressants were issued in the UK in 2018—nearly twice as many as the previous decade.3 However, there remain important questions around the tolerability of antidepressant medication. It is well recognised that the side effects of antidepressants can be extremely debilitating and that unwanted symptoms associated with these medications are one of the main reasons for patients discontinuing treatment.4 There are many different antidepressant drugs available, recommended by guidelines, and thus commonly used in real-world clinical practice in patients with depressive disorder across the world. A large number of different side effects of antidepressant medication from different patient populations have been reported in randomised controlled trails.5 While we now have evidence from randomised trials informing us which specific side effects are experienced by patients taking antidepressants, and the frequency of these specific individual side effects, we have limited evidence from real-world patients as to which …

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 · 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300105

Cites

9 of 9 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kernot, C., Tomlinson, A., Chevance, A., & Cipriani, A.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR)
Corresponding author
Cipriani, Andrea
Venue
Evidence Based Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-07-13
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
91-92
ISSN
  • 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-960X
OpenAlex
W2959847229
Cited by
13
References
9
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
NIHR
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
antidepressants, real-world data, patient preferences, clinician preferences, depression treatment
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Drug Prescriptions, Precision Medicine

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