Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are still harmful and ineffective. Responses to the comments by Hieronymus et al

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Markers of HPA-axis activity and nucleic acid damage from oxidation after electroconvulsive stimulations in rats

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Differential plastic changes in synthesis and binding in the mouse somatostatin system after electroconvulsive stimulation

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Effects of erythropoietin on body composition and fat-glucose metabolism in patients with affective disorders

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) in measurement-based care of patients with psychotic depression

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Sertraline in primary care: comments on the PANDA trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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 We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review.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.seem 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Neuropsychiatrica
Volume31
Issue number5
Pages (from-to)276-284
Number of pages28
ISSN1601-5215
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Jun 2019

ID: 57627000