Clinical judgment in psychiatry. Requiem or reveille?

Fava, Giovanni A.

doi:10.3109/08039488.2012.701665

Cited by 27 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, RCTs have failed to document a significant effect of its treatment on subsequent prognosis of CAD, and the clinical implications of massive research are at present negligible. The role of depression and the use of antidepressant drugs have been supported by extensive pharmaceutical propaganda [88]. Indeed, the use of antidepressants in cardiology settings has risen dramatically since the early 1990s [89].…”

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Depression the Wrong Treatment Target for Improving Outcome in Coronary Artery Disease?

Rafanelli¹,

Sirri

Grandi³

et al. 2013

Psychother Psychosom

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depression was assimilated to ‘bad cholesterol' and antidepressant drugs to statins, which noone should be refused (well beyond the original indications). Type A behavior did not fit with this promotional picture and was thus censored by the special-interest groups that control medical information [88]. …”

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Depression the Wrong Treatment Target for Improving Outcome in Coronary Artery Disease?

Rafanelli¹,

Sirri

Grandi³

et al. 2013

Psychother Psychosom

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is a very subjective index, which no biological marker can capture [1,2,3]. When reviewing 75 scientific articles covering more than 100 different scales or questionnaires, Gill and Feinstein [4] demonstrated that a clinimetric definition of subjective well-being was lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Topp

Østergaard

Søndergaard

et al. 2015

Psychother Psychosom

3,183

2,571

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is among the most widely used questionnaires assessing subjective psychological well-being. Since its first publication in 1998, the WHO-5 has been translated into more than 30 languages and has been used in research studies all over the world. We now provide a systematic review of the literature on the WHO-5. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for literature on the WHO-5 in PubMed and PsycINFO in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. In our review of the identified articles, we focused particularly on the following aspects: (1) the clinimetric validity of the WHO-5; (2) the responsiveness/sensitivity of the WHO-5 in controlled clinical trials; (3) the potential of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, and (4) the applicability of the WHO-5 across study fields. Results: A total of 213 articles met the predefined criteria for inclusion in the review. The review demonstrated that the WHO-5 has high clinimetric validity, can be used as an outcome measure balancing the wanted and unwanted effects of treatments, is a sensitive and specific screening tool for depression and its applicability across study fields is very high. Conclusions: The WHO-5 is a short questionnaire consisting of 5 simple and non-invasive questions, which tap into the subjective well-being of the respondents. The scale has adequate validity both as a screening tool for depression and as an outcome measure in clinical trials and has been applied successfully across a wide range of study fields.

show abstract

“…Other instrumental methods are: the substitution of critical reviews for meta-analyses whose data could be easily manipulated [7]; an emphasis on clinical guidelines by experts with major conflicts of interest [8]; full control of medical societies, their journals and their meetings [3], and keeping medical literature as far away as possible from the clinical problems of daily practice. Occasional articles taking anti-pharma positions may serve the purpose of claiming independence and of masking the fact that special interest groups are using evidence-based medicine as a sort of ‘Leitkultur', a German term that connotes the cultural superiority of a culture, with policies of compulsory cultural assimilation [9]. Free access, then, becomes free access to what one is allowed to see by production restrictions.…”

Section: Censorship and Leitkulturmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in many medical journals the section concerned with correspondence has often been trimmed in recent years, whereas it used to report important reactions by clinicians to what had been published. Pluralism is threatened by the Leitkultur of evidence-based medicine [9] and open-access journals.…”

Section: The Intellectual Capital Of Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%