Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Depression: HELP
Articles by Erick H. Turner
Based on 12 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, E. H. Turner wrote the following 12 articles about Depression.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Editorial Efficacy of antidepressants. 2008

Turner, Erick H / Rosenthal, Robert. · ·BMJ · Pubmed #18319297.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Review Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. 2018

Cipriani, Andrea / Furukawa, Toshi A / Salanti, Georgia / Chaimani, Anna / Atkinson, Lauren Z / Ogawa, Yusuke / Leucht, Stefan / Ruhe, Henricus G / Turner, Erick H / Higgins, Julian P T / Egger, Matthias / Takeshima, Nozomi / Hayasaka, Yu / Imai, Hissei / Shinohara, Kiyomi / Tajika, Aran / Ioannidis, John P A / Geddes, John R. ·Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: andrea.cipriani@psych.ox.ac.uk. · Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine and School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan. · Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. · School of Medicine, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France; INSERM, UMR1153 Epidemiology and Statistics, Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center, METHODS Team, Paris, France; Cochrane France, Paris, France. · Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK. · Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Psychiatry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands. · Behavioral Health and Neurosciences Division, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Department Pharmacology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. · Department of Medicine, Department of Health Research and Policy, Department of Biomedical Data Science, and Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. · Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK. ·Lancet · Pubmed #29477251.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

3 Review Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis. 2016

de Vries, Ymkje Anna / Roest, Annelieke M / Beijers, Lian / Turner, Erick H / de Jonge, Peter. ·Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: y.a.de.vries@umcg.nl. · Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. · Behavioral Health and Neurosciences Division, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Developmental Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. ·Eur Neuropsychopharmacol · Pubmed #27659240.

ABSTRACT: Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79%) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63%) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29%) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43%) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29%) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.

4 Review Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials. 2015

Driessen, Ellen / Hollon, Steven D / Bockting, Claudi L H / Cuijpers, Pim / Turner, Erick H. ·Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University and VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America. · Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Behavioral Health and Neurosciences Division, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, United States of America; Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America. ·PLoS One · Pubmed #26422604.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972-2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges' g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression.

5 Review Rethinking recommendations for screening for depression in primary care. 2012

Thombs, Brett D / Coyne, James C / Cuijpers, Pim / de Jonge, Peter / Gilbody, Simon / Ioannidis, John P A / Johnson, Blair T / Patten, Scott B / Turner, Erick H / Ziegelstein, Roy C. ·Department of Psychiatry, McGill University and Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Que. brett.thombs@mcgill.ca ·CMAJ · Pubmed #21930744.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Article Comparative efficacy and acceptability of first-generation and second-generation antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression: protocol for a network meta-analysis. 2016

Furukawa, Toshi A / Salanti, Georgia / Atkinson, Lauren Z / Leucht, Stefan / Ruhe, Henricus G / Turner, Erick H / Chaimani, Anna / Ogawa, Yusuke / Takeshima, Nozomi / Hayasaka, Yu / Imai, Hissei / Shinohara, Kiyomi / Suganuma, Aya / Watanabe, Norio / Stockton, Sarah / Geddes, John R / Cipriani, Andrea. ·Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan. · Department of Clinical Research, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. · Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. · Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TU- Munich, Munchen, Germany. · Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands University Center for Psychiatry, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. · Behavioral Health and Neurosciences Division, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. · Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK. ·BMJ Open · Pubmed #27401359.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Many antidepressants are indicated for the treatment of major depression. Two network meta-analyses have provided the most comprehensive assessments to date, accounting for both direct and indirect comparisons; however, these reported conflicting interpretation of results. Here, we present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed at updating the evidence base and comparing all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all randomised controlled trials reported as double-blind and comparing one active drug with another or with placebo in the acute phase treatment of major depression in adults. We are interested in comparing the following active agents: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. The main outcomes will be the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; all reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random effects network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. To rank the various treatments for each outcome, we will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks. We will employ local as well as global methods to evaluate consistency. We will fit our model in a Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS, and produce results and various checks in Stata and R. We will also assess the quality of evidence contributing to network estimates of the main outcomes with the GRADE framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002291.

7 Article Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Investigating the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders: A Report of 2 Meta-analyses. 2015

Roest, Annelieke M / de Jonge, Peter / Williams, Craig D / de Vries, Ymkje Anna / Schoevers, Robert A / Turner, Erick H. ·Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. · College of Pharmacy, Oregon State and Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. · Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. ·JAMA Psychiatry · Pubmed #25806940.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: Studies have shown that the scientific literature has overestimated the efficacy of antidepressants for depression, but other indications for these drugs have not been considered. OBJECTIVE: To examine reporting biases in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the pharmacologic treatment of anxiety disorders and quantify the extent to which these biases inflate estimates of drug efficacy. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We included reviews obtained from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for premarketing trials of 9 second-generation antidepressants in the treatment of anxiety disorders. A systematic search for matching publications (until December 19, 2012) was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Double data extraction was performed for the FDA reviews and the journal articles. The Hedges g value was calculated as the measure of effect size. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reporting bias was examined and classified as study publication bias, outcome reporting bias, or spin (abstract conclusion not consistent with published results on primary end point). Separate meta-analyses were conducted for the 2 sources, and the effect of publication status on the effect estimates was examined using meta-regression. RESULTS: The findings of 41 of the 57 trials (72%) were positive according to the FDA, but 43 of the 45 published article conclusions (96%) were positive (P < .001). Trials that the FDA determined as positive were 5 times more likely to be published in agreement with that determination compared with trials determined as not positive (risk ratio, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.87 to 14.45; P < .001). We found evidence for study publication bias (P < .001), outcome reporting bias (P = .02), and spin (P = .02). The pooled effect size based on the published literature (Hedges g, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.42; P < .001) was 15% higher than the effect size based on the FDA data (Hedges g, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.38; P < .001), but this difference was not statistically significant (β = 0.04; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Various reporting biases were present for trials on the efficacy of FDA-approved second-generation antidepressants for anxiety disorders. Although these biases did not significantly inflate estimates of drug efficacy, reporting biases led to significant increases in the number of positive findings in the literature.

8 Article What is the threshold for a clinically relevant effect? The case of major depressive disorders. 2014

Cuijpers, Pim / Turner, Erick H / Koole, Sander L / van Dijke, Annemiek / Smit, Filip. ·Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Leuphana University, Lünebrug, Germany. ·Depress Anxiety · Pubmed #24677535.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Randomized trials can show whether a treatment effect is statistically significant and can describe the size of the effect. There are, however, no validated methods available for establishing the clinical relevance of these outcomes. Recently, it was proposed that a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.50 be used as cutoff for clinical relevance in the treatment of depression. METHODS: We explore what the effect size means and why the size of an effect has little bearing on its clinical relevance. We will also examine how the "minimally important difference," as seen from the patient perspective, may be helpful in deciding where the cutoff for clinical relevance should be placed for a given condition. RESULTS: Effect sizes in itself cannot give an indication of the clinical relevance of an intervention because the outcome itself determines the clinical relevance and not only the size of the effects. The "minimal important difference" (MID) could be used as a starting point for pinpointing the cutoff for clinical relevance. A first, rough attempt to implement this approach for depression resulted in a tentative clinical relevance cutoff of SMD = 0.24. Using this cutoff, psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and combined treatment have effect sizes above this cutoff. DISCUSSION: Statistical outcomes cannot be equated with clinical relevance. The "MID" may be used for pinpointing the cutoff for clinical relevance, but more work in this area is needed.

9 Article Comparison of psychotherapies for adult depression to pill placebo control groups: a meta-analysis. 2014

Cuijpers, P / Turner, E H / Mohr, D C / Hofmann, S G / Andersson, G / Berking, M / Coyne, J. ·Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Behavioral Health and Neurosciences Division, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA. · Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. · Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Sweden. · Department of Clinical Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany. · Health Psychology Section, Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center, Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. ·Psychol Med · Pubmed #23552610.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The effects of antidepressants for treating depressive disorders have been overestimated because of selective publication of positive trials. Reanalyses that include unpublished trials have yielded reduced effect sizes. This in turn has led to claims that antidepressants have clinically insignificant advantages over placebo and that psychotherapy is therefore a better alternative. To test this, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing psychotherapy with pill placebo. METHOD: Ten 10 studies comparing psychotherapies with pill placebo were identified. In total, 1240 patients were included in these studies. For each study, Hedges' g was calculated. Characteristics of the studies were extracted for subgroup and meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: The effect of psychotherapy compared to pill placebo at post-test was g = 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.36, I² = 0%, 95% CI 0-58]. This effect size corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 7.14 (95% CI 5.00-12.82). The psychotherapy conditions scored 2.66 points lower on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) than the placebo conditions, and 3.20 points lower on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Some indications for publication bias were found (two missing studies). We found no significant differences between subgroups of the studies and in meta-regression analyses we found no significant association between baseline severity and effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are differences between the role of placebo in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, psychotherapy has an effect size that is comparable to that of antidepressant medications. Whether these effects should be deemed clinically relevant remains open to debate.

10 Minor Retraction of biased journal articles. 2015

de Vries, Ymkje Anna / Turner, Erick H / Roest, Annelieke M. ·University of Groningen, University Medical Centre, Groningen, Netherlands. · Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. ·BMJ · Pubmed #26489839.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Minor Reboxetine in depression. All the relevant data? 2010

Turner, Erick H. · ·BMJ · Pubmed #21081614.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

12 Minor Novel treatment strategies for depression in patients with hepatitis C. 2010

Loftis, Jennifer M / Turner, Erick H. · ·Psychosomatics · Pubmed #20587769.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --