...
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence-based mental health >Making the best use of available evidence: the case of new generation antidepressants: a response to: are all antidepressants equal?
【24h】

Making the best use of available evidence: the case of new generation antidepressants: a response to: are all antidepressants equal?

机译:充分利用现有证据:新一代抗抑郁药的情况:回应:所有抗抑郁药是否均等?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In this issue of Evidence-Based Mental Health, Gartlehner and Gaynes1 comment (see page 98) on our recently published systematic review2 that investigated the comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new generation antidepressants (see page 107) In their view, methodological shortcomings limit the validity of our results and the conclusions reached. In this commentary, our aim is to explain the rationale for doing this systematic review, outline its main findings and address the points raised by Gartlehner and Gaynes.1 Scientific debate can illuminate and clarify complex analyses and we are, therefore, delighted to respond to their critique. While we consider that some of the issues raised are substantive and merit reasoned response, we also believe that some of their criticisms seem rather overstated. We understand that Gartlehner and Gaynes too have published an analysis comparing antidepressants and we note that this is now the third occasion on which they have published similar criticisms of our work.
机译:在本期《循证心理健康》中,Gattlehner和Gaynes对我们最近发表的系统评价2的评论(请参阅第98页),该评论调查了12种新一代抗抑郁药的相对疗效和可接受性(请参阅第107页)。我们的结果和得出的结论的有效性。在这篇评论中,我们的目的是解释进行此系统评价的理由,概述其主要发现并解决加特勒纳和盖恩斯提出的观点。1科学辩论可以阐明和阐明复杂的分析,因此,我们很高兴回应他们的批评。尽管我们认为提出的一些问题是实质性的和值得作出合理回应的,但我们也认为他们的某些批评似乎有些夸大其词。我们了解到Gartlehner和Gaynes也发表了比较抗抑郁药的分析,我们注意到这是他们第三次发表对我们工作的类似批评。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号