BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Narrative reviews represent a popular source of information for clinicians, especially where the evidence on a given subject is sparse and analogies from other fields of medicine may help in filling the information gap. Unfortunately, narrative reviews often follow less stringent criteria for information selection and appraisal than systematic reviews, potentially leading to incomplete or biased recommendations. The objective of the present study was to examine the quality of the recommendations provided by narrative reviews on how to improve patient adherence to pharmacological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. METHOD: We sought to locate all narrative review papers addressing adherence to treatment in unipolar depressive disorders. In order to do so, we searched Medline and PsychInfo from 1980 to December 2003, using the following keywords: review, depressive disorders, treatment, dropout, patient compliance and adherence. We inspected the title and the abstract, whenever available to identify the relevant reviews and obtained a full copy of the publications in this subset, and read the articles to identify further relevant reviews. These were in turn copied and reviewed, until no further references were found. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 23 reviews, providing a total of 87 recommendations. The most common recommendation was for patient education (19 times), patient-physician empathy/alliance (14 times), and education of family (nine times). Reviewers' recommendations were based on the literature on depression 54 times, and on other medical conditions 17 times. A critical appraisal of the evidence base of the recommendations showed that randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses were quoted to support the recommendations only 23% of the times, while important interventions of proven efficacy in the field of depression or in other chronic conditions (e.g. medication clinics, training of nurses, psychological treatment, and telephone follow-up) were not mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative reviews on adherence to pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders suffer not only from the limited availability of good quality evidence, but also from an incomplete critical appraisal of available evidence on interventions both for depression and for other chronic disorders.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Narrative reviews represent a popular source of information for clinicians, especially where the evidence on a given subject is sparse and analogies from other fields of medicine may help in filling the information gap. Unfortunately, narrative reviews often follow less stringent criteria for information selection and appraisal than systematic reviews, potentially leading to incomplete or biased recommendations. The objective of the present study was to examine the quality of the recommendations provided by narrative reviews on how to improve patient adherence to pharmacological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. METHOD: We sought to locate all narrative review papers addressing adherence to treatment in unipolar depressive disorders. In order to do so, we searched Medline and PsychInfo from 1980 to December 2003, using the following keywords: review, depressive disorders, treatment, dropout, patient compliance and adherence. We inspected the title and the abstract, whenever available to identify the relevant reviews and obtained a full copy of the publications in this subset, and read the articles to identify further relevant reviews. These were in turn copied and reviewed, until no further references were found. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 23 reviews, providing a total of 87 recommendations. The most common recommendation was for patient education (19 times), patient-physician empathy/alliance (14 times), and education of family (nine times). Reviewers' recommendations were based on the literature on depression 54 times, and on other medical conditions 17 times. A critical appraisal of the evidence base of the recommendations showed that randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses were quoted to support the recommendations only 23% of the times, while important interventions of proven efficacy in the field of depression or in other chronic conditions (e.g. medication clinics, training of nurses, psychological treatment, and telephone follow-up) were not mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative reviews on adherence to pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders suffer not only from the limited availability of good quality evidence, but also from an incomplete critical appraisal of available evidence on interventions both for depression and for other chronic disorders.
Authors: Louisa G Sylvia; Aleena Hay; Michael J Ostacher; David J Miklowitz; Andrew A Nierenberg; Michael E Thase; Gary S Sachs; Thilo Deckersbach; Roy H Perlis Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Esther A Boudewijns; Debbie Vermond; Rianne M J J van der Kleij; Niels H Chavannes; Onno C P van Schayck; Bruce Kirenga; Evelyn A Brakema Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.692