Talk:Antidepressant

Flaws in Antidepressant Research

It has by now been well-documented that there are a number of unacceptable and significant flaws in the antidepressant research literature, particularly in the early trials conducted in the 90s/00s. In some cases this has led to significant public scandals, as in Study 329 or in Lilly's practice of misclassifying suicides. The flaws in the original trials mean that in many cases the prominent meta-analyses (such as Cipriani's) have had to use low-quality or uncertain evidence. Considering the magnitude of the problem, it is not well-represented in the article, given only a few sentences under MDD and a well-sourced but incomplete treatment in pharmacology. Some issues, such as widespread misreporting and ghostwriting, are mentioned only in passing or not at all. The problems with the literature should be substantially explicated somewhere in the article, possibly even with its own section or at least subsection. When I have the time I will try to do so. Feline negativity (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Medgirl131 Your contribution is excellent but I wonder whether some of it would be better-suited to a "Controversy" section. I'm currently drafting one and a lot of the points you've added also belong there. There should certainly be something about the active placebo theory under pharmacology, but I think some of it should be moved up to this new section. If you have any thoughts they'd be very welcome. Feline negativity (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Have now added a "Controversy" section. It needs a bit of work, including a more detailed presentation on the case for why the efficacy of antidepressants is underestimated, but I think it's a fair summary. In the past it seems there was more information on the controversy, it's unclear why there no longer is given that the debate remains alive and well. Feline negativity (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

How dare the miracle pills prescribed to tens of millions of people to cure every illness on the planet have any issues with them!!! YOU ARE JUST BRAINWASHED!!!!!!!!! 2603:8080:9B04:2256:C863:8A95:53B3:ACF1 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Akathisia

There appears to have been a bit of edit-warring about akathisia as a common side effect. Akathisia doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is well-known that akathisia can be a side effect of antidepressants, there are countless case reports and I believe the package inserts also mention it. The trouble is that as far as I can tell there are no reliable estimates of how common akithisia actually is. I'll keep looking but if someone does have a source on how often it occurs it would be very helpful. Feline negativity (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a real paucity of research on this. Again it's well-known they can cause akathisia, but very hard to estimate how often. A 2016 BMJ systematic review found doubled odds of akathisia, but the results were not statistically significant, authors also say likely underestimated due to misreporting. A 2009 review in BJPsych found the incidence of what they termed "jitteriness/anxiety syndrome" to be between 4 to 65 percent, which really underscores the difficulty of knowing how common it is. Loonen and Stahl cite Lipinski et al.'s paper (on fluoxetine) to put the incidence between 9.8 and 25 percent. Given that it's a known side effect it should appear somewhere in the article, but since the incidence estimates are unreliable I don't know that it should be in the list of common side effects right at the start. Worth noting perhaps that agitation (of which akathisia is an extreme manifestation) does appear as a "common side effect." Feline negativity (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

pharmacology section

The pharmacology section seems to mainly be about addressing the criticisms of the monoamine hypothesis and antidepressants in general. It is relevant to reference these, but I think it would be fair to mention other documented indirect effects of (certain) antidepressants such as increased BDNF expression and down-regulation of certain serotonin receptors as well. I am not a medical professional so maybe someone who knows about neuropsychopharmacology could provide some information/sources. 83.233.200.105 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@83.233.200.105 Agreed, section definitely in need of work/updating. BDNF very popular now, this review could be a good source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.008 Feline negativity (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m glad

That Wikipedia is not full of psych bootlickers and shows the truth about antidepressants and SSRIs. I will never take those poison pills even if my life depends on it. This is the only place you can talk about it without people screaming “MISINFORMATION!!!!!!” and “LOL WIKIPEDIA!!!” in your face. The more people I see glorify these meds the more I die inside. I cannot take these zombie pills being worshipped as cure-alls and prescribed to one more person anymore. I hope every single one of these pills on the planet gets crushed and incinerated. How about RESEARCH SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY WORKS. 2603:8080:9B04:2256:C863:8A95:53B3:ACF1 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are to be used to dicuss disputes about article content, not to voice your opinion. David notMD (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

PSSD does not have its own Wikipedia page

PSSD stands for persistent sexual dysfunction, lasting more than 6 months after discontinuation of SSRI:s. It would be very good to add this under the Sexual Dysfunction headline, so it can link to a new PSSD article.

Community discussion relating to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/PSSD/comments/1j6j06o/pssd_does_not_have_its_own_wikipedia_page/ Keplaris (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)