Abstract
In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.
Highlights
The published protocol (Furukawa et al, 2016) of the Cipriani et al review (Cipriani et al, 2018) states that a trial is classified at low risk of bias if none of the domains described above was rated at high risk of bias and three or less were rated at unclear risk; moderate risk of bias if one was rated at high risk of bias or none was rated at high risk of bias but four or more were rated at unclear risk; and all other trials were assumed at high risk of bias
It must be noted that when assessing the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) using other rating scales [e.g. MontgomeryAsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)] the results correspond to the HDRS results, that is, very minimal beneficial effects (Jakobsen et al, 2017a)
We do not agree with Hieronymus et al.’s claim that we are biased regarding reporting of ‘high risk of publication bias’ (Hieronymus et al, 2018a)
Summary
In Hieronymus et al.’s most recent critique (Hieronymus et al, 2018a), they criticised both our original systematic review (Jakobsen et al, 2017a) and our response (Katakam et al, 2018) to their earlier critique (Hieronymus et al, 2018b). In our response (Katakam et al, 2018), we expressed surprise over Hieronymus et al.’s conclusion that there was no significant difference between SSRI and placebo with respect to SAEs without including data from the missed trials.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
