Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk-Benefit Decision Making for Treatment of Depression During Pregnancy

Wisner, Katherine L., Zarin, Deborah A., Holmboe, Eric S., Appelbaum, Paul S., Gelenberg, Alan J., Leonard, Henrietta L., Frank, Ellen·2000·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Committee on Research on Psychiatric Treatments of the American Psychiatric Association identified treatment of major depression during pregnancy as a priority area for improvement in clinical management. The goal of this article was to assist physicians in optimizing treatment plans for childbearing women. METHOD: The authors' work group developed a decision-making model designed to structure the information delivered to pregnant women in the context of the risk-benefit discussion. Perspectives of forensic and decision-making experts were incorporated. RESULTS: The model directs the psychiatrist to structure the problem through diagnostic formulation and identification of treatment options for depression. Reproductive toxicity in five domains (intrauterine fetal death, physical malformations, growth impairment, behavioral teratogenicity, and neonatal toxicity) is reviewed for the potential somatic treatments. The illness (depression) also is characterized by symptoms of somatic dysregulation that compromise health during pregnancy. The patient actively participates and provides her evaluation of the acceptability of the various treatments and outcomes. Her capacity to participate in this process provides evidence of competence to consent. Included in the decision-making process are the patient's significant others and obstetrical physician. The process is ongoing, with the need for incorporation of additional data as the pregnancy and treatment response progress. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model provides structure to a process that is frequently stressful for both patients and psychiatrists. By applying the model, clinicians will ensure that critical aspects of the risk-benefit discussion are included in their care of pregnant women.

Overview

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 · 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1933

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Wisner, K. L., Zarin, D. A., Holmboe, E. S., Appelbaum, P. S., Gelenberg, A. J., Leonard, H. L., & Frank, E.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2000-12
Volume
157
Issue
12
Pages
1933-1940
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2130162814
Cited by
265
References
3
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk-Benefit Decision Making for Treatment of Depression During Pregnancy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1933
The paper
Wisner, K. L., Zarin, D. A., Holmboe, E. S., Appelbaum, P. S., Gelenberg, A. J., Leonard, H. L., & Frank, E. (2000). Risk-Benefit Decision Making for Treatment of Depression During Pregnancy. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1933

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.