Suppr超能文献

科学辩论而非争吵;挑战关于抗抑郁药疗效的误导性争论。

Scientific debate instead of beef; challenging misleading arguments about the efficacy of antidepressants.

机构信息

Department of Applied Psychology,Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW),PO Box 707, CH-8037 Zurich,Switzerland.

出版信息

Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2019 Aug;31(4):235-236. doi: 10.1017/neu.2019.23. Epub 2019 Jun 4.

Abstract

In a recent commentary with the polemic title 'Antidepressants; what's the beef?', Goodwin and Nutt argued that the benefit-risk ratio of antidepressants had been questioned inappropriately (Goodwin & Nutt, 2019). Personally I think it is a great achievement that our medical system can offer pharmacological treatments to people who suffer from serious clinical depression, and like Goodwin and Nutt I accept that antidepressants may be useful in some patients (Hengartner & Plöderl, 2018). Nevertheless, and this is where my position deviates from Goodwin and Nutt, I am also concerned about the overestimation of efficacy and the minimisation of harm (Hengartner, 2017). There are many misrepresentations in the commentary by Goodwin and Nutt, all of which systematically inflate the apparent benefits of antidepressants, and in this letter, I will discuss five of them.

摘要

在最近一篇颇具争议性的评论文章中,Goodwin 和 Nutt 认为,抗抑郁药的收益-风险比被不恰当地提出了质疑(Goodwin & Nutt, 2019)。我个人认为,我们的医疗系统能够为患有严重临床抑郁症的人提供药物治疗,这是一项巨大的成就,而且像 Goodwin 和 Nutt 一样,我也承认抗抑郁药可能对某些患者有用(Hengartner & Plöderl, 2018)。然而,这也是我与 Goodwin 和 Nutt 的立场分歧之处,我同样也关注抗抑郁药疗效的高估和危害的最小化(Hengartner, 2017)。Goodwin 和 Nutt 的评论中有许多错误陈述,这些陈述都系统地夸大了抗抑郁药的明显益处,在这封信中,我将讨论其中的五个。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验