_files/lancet-lancet.jpg)
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data
_files/article_notepad.gif)
_files/icon_email.png){kind=icon}
_files/9.png)
_files/expand.gif)
Article InfoTo view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Figure
Trial flowchart for published data
RCT=randomised controlled trial. *Includes trials reported in several publications.
Summary
Background
Questions concerning the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of depression in children led us to compare and contrast published and unpublished data on the risks and benefits of these drugs.
Methods
We did a meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials that evaluated an SSRI versus placebo in participants aged 5–18 years and that were published in a peer-reviewed journal or were unpublished and included in a review by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The following outcomes were included: remission, response to treatment, depressive symptom scores, serious adverse events, suicide-related behaviours, and discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events.
Findings
Data for two published trials suggest that fluoxetine has a favourable risk-benefit profile, and unpublished data lend support to this finding. Published results from one trial of paroxetine and two trials of sertraline suggest equivocal or weak positive risk-benefit profiles. However, in both cases, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks outweigh benefits. Data from unpublished trials of citalopram and venlafaxine show unfavourable risk-benefit profiles.
Interpretation
Published data suggest a favourable risk-benefit profile for some SSRIs; however, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks could outweigh benefits of these drugs (except fluoxetine) to treat depression in children and young people. Clinical guideline development and clinical decisions about treatment are largely dependent on an evidence base published in peer-reviewed journals. Non-publication of trials, for whatever reason, or the omission of important data from published trials, can lead to erroneous recommendations for treatment. Greater openness and transparency with respect to all intervention studies is needed.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Already registered? Please login.
Register
Create a new accountThe Lancet Choice
Access any 5 articles from The Lancet family of journals- Full text and PDF access to 5 paywall articles of your choice
- Valid for 365 days from date of purchase
- Find out more about The Lancet Choice
Payment Options
-
Purchase this article for $31.50 USD
- Online access for 24 hours
- PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Options include:
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
Already a print subscriber?
Claim online accessHave a free trial code?
Activate your free trialThe Lancet Choice
_files/TL_choice.gif)
The Lancet Choice is a new payment option that gives you the freedom and flexibility to access any 5 premium articles of your choice from across The Lancet family of journals - all for a one-off payment of $49.00 USD.
Simply purchase your Lancet Choice pass from the Summary or Full Text page of an article you wish to access. This will count as the first of 5 article credits, or ‘Allowances’, and you can use your 4 remaining Allowances to access other articles from any of The Lancet journals.
_files/pdf_icon.png "Download PDF"){kind=icon}