<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine - Latest articles</title>
		<link>http://www.peh-med.com</link>
		<description>The latest articles from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine (ISSN 1747-5341) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/24"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/23"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/22"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/21"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/20"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/19"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/18"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/17"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/16"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/15"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/14"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>  
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/24">
            
            <title>The 'Brain Drain' of Physicians: 
Historical antecedents to an ethical debate, c. 1960-79
</title>
			<description>  Many western industrialized countries are currently suffering from a crisis in health human resources, one that involves a debate over the recruitment and licensing of foreign-trained doctors and nurses. The intense public policy interest in foreign-trained medical personnel, however, is not new. During the 1960s, western countries revised their immigration policies to focus on highly-trained professionals.  During the following decade, hundreds of thousands of health care practitioners migrated from poorer jurisdictions to western industrialized countries to solve what were then deemed to be national doctor and nursing shortages in the developed world.  Migration plummeted in the 1980s and 1990s only to re-emerge in the last decade as an important debate in global health care policy and ethics.  This paper will examine the historical antecedents to this ethical debate.  It will trace the early articulation of the idea of a 'brain drain', one that emerged from the loss of NHS doctors to other western jurisdictions in the 1950s and 1960s.  Only over time did the discussion turn to the 'manpower' losses of 'third world countries', but the inability to track physician migration, amongst other variables, muted any concerted ethical debate.  By contrast, the last decade's literature has witnessed a dramatically different ethical framework, informed by globalization, the rise of South Africa as a source donor country, and the ongoing catastrophe of the AIDS epidemic.  Unlike the literature of the early 1970s, recent scholarship has focussed on a new framework of global ethics.   </description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/24</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>D Wright, N Flis and M Gupta</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:24</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-11-10</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-24</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>24</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-10</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/23">
            
            <title>The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: A commentary</title>
			<description>The ideology of evidence-base medicine (EBM) has dramatically altered the way we think, conceptualize, philosophize and practice medicine. One of its major pillars is the appraisal and classification of evidence. Although important and beneficial, this process currently lacks detail and is in need of reform. In particular, it largely focuses on three key dimensions (design, [type I] alpha error and beta [type II] error) to grade the quality of evidence and often omits other crucial aspects of evidence such as biological plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, temporality, consistency and coherence. It also over-values the randomized trial and meta-analytical techniques, discounts the biasing effect of single centre execution and gives insufficient weight to large and detailed observational studies. Unless these aspects are progressively included into systems for grading, evaluating and classifying evidence and duly empirically assessed (according to the EBM paradigm), the EBM process and movement will remain open to criticism of being more evidence-biased than evidence-based."All scientific work is incomplete &#8211; whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time".Sir Bradford Austin Hill 1</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/23</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Sean M Bagshaw and Rinaldo Bellomo</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:23</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-09-30</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-23</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>23</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-30</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/22">
            
            <title>Human embryonic stem cell research, justice, and the problem of unequal biological access</title>
			<description>In 2003, Ruth Faden and eighteen other colleagues argued that a "problem of unequal biological access" is likely to arise in access to therapies resulting from human embryonic stem cell research. They showed that unless deliberate steps are taken in the United States to ensure that the human embryonic stem cell lines available to researchers mirrors the genetic diversity of the general population, white Americans will likely receive the benefits of these therapies to the relative exclusion of minority ethnic groups.Over the past five years the problem of unequal biological access has not received much attention from politicians, bioethicists and even many researchers in the United States, in spite of the widely held belief in the country that there is an obligation to prevent and correct ethnic disparities in access to medical care. The purpose of this paper is to increase awareness of the problem of unequal biological access and of the need to do more than is currently being done to ensure that ethnic disparities in access to human embryonic stem cell-based therapies do not arise.Specifically, this paper explains why the problem of unequal biological access will likely arise in the United States in such a way that white Americans will disproportionately receive most of the benefits of the therapies resulting from human embryonic stem cell research. It also argues for why there is an obligation to prevent these ethnic disparities in access from happening and outlines four steps that need to be taken towards meeting this obligation.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/22</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Mark S Moller</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:22</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-09-29</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-22</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>22</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-29</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/21">
            
            <title>"Enhanced" interrogation of detainees: do psychologists and psychiatrists participate?</title>
			<description>After revelations of participation by psychiatrists and psychologists in interrogation of prisoners at Guant&#225;namo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency secret detention centers, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association adopted Position Statements absolutely prohibiting their members from participating in torture under any and all circumstances, and, to a limited degree, forbidding involvement in interrogations. Some interrogations utilize very aggressive techniques determined to be torture by many nations and organizations throughout the world. This paper explains why psychiatrists and psychologists involved in coercive interrogations violate the Geneva Conventions and the laws of the United States. Whether done with ignorance of professional ethical obligations or not, these psychiatrists and psychologists have crossed an ethical barrier that may best be averted from re-occurring by teaching medical students and residents in all medical specialties about the ethics principles stemming from the 1946&#8211;1947 Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions, together with the Ethics Codes of the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association; and, with regard to psychiatric residents and psychological trainees, by the teaching about The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry and the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, respectively. In this way, all physicians and psychologists will clearly understand that they have an absolute moral obligation to "First, do no harm" to the human beings they professionally encounter.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/21</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Abraham L Halpern, John H Halpern and Sean B Doherty</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:21</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-09-25</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-21</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-25</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/20">
            
            <title>Ethical challenges with the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy</title>
			<description>The left ventricular assist device was originally designed to be surgically implanted as a bridge to transplantation for patients with chronic end-stage heart failure. On the basis of the REMATCH trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services approved permanent implantation of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy in Medicare beneficiaries who are not candidates for heart transplantation. The use of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy raises certain ethical challenges. Left ventricular assist devices can prolong the survival of average recipients compared with optimal medical management of chronic end-stage heart failure. However, the overall quality of life can be adversely affected in some recipients because of serious infections, neurologic complications, and device malfunction. Left ventricular assist devices alter end-of-life trajectories. The caregivers of recipients may experience significant burden (e.g., poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder) from destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices. There are also social and financial ramifications for recipients and their families. We advocate early utilization of a palliative care approach and outline prerequisite conditions so that consenting for the use of a left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy is a well informed process. These conditions include: (1) direct participation of a multidisciplinary care team, including palliative care specialists, (2) a concise plan of care for anticipated device-related complications, (3) careful surveillance and counseling for caregiver burden, (4) advance-care planning for anticipated end-of-life trajectories and timing of device deactivation, and (5) a plan to address the long-term financial burden on patients, families, and caregivers.Short-term mechanical circulatory devices (e.g. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, etc.) can be initiated in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of ventricular assist devices in chronic end-stage heart failure. In the absence of first-person (patient) consent, presumed consent or surrogate consent should be used cautiously for the initiation of short-term mechanical circulatory devices in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Future clinical studies of destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices should include measures of recipients' quality of end-of-life care and caregivers' burden.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/20</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Aaron G Rizzieri, Joseph L Verheijde, Mohamed Y Rady and Joan L McGregor</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:20</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-20</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-11</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/19">
            
            <title>Internationalisation of information services for publishers' open access policies: the DINI multilingual integration layer</title>
			<description>It is essential for the strategy of open access self-archiving that scientific authors are given comprehensive information on publisher copyright policies. DINI, the German Initiative for Networked Information, has developed a German (and potentially multilingual) interface to the English SHERPA/RoMEO service to provide additional information on German publishers' open access policies. As a next step, this interface was enhanced to an integration layer combining different sources on publisher copyright policies. This integration layer can be used in many different contexts. Together with the SHERPA/RoMEO team, DINI aims to build an international support structure for open access information.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/19</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Frank Scholze</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:19</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-19</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/18">
            
            <title>Book Review of Alternatives Beyond Psychiatry by Peter Stastny and Peter Lehmann (Eds)</title>
			<description>Peter Stastny and Peter Lehmann's Alternatives beyond Psychiatry offers a comprehensive and up to date account of the alternatives to mainstream psychiatry that are being developed by service consumers and survivors across the world. As psychiatry moves into a new age less dominated by a biomedical paradigm many of the approaches described in this book may be adopted by mainstream health services. This is a hugely readable and accessible book for professionals and consumers alike.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/18</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Paul Hammersley</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:18</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-23</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-18</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-23</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/17">
            
            <title>The anatomy of sorrow: a spiritual, phenomenological, and neurological perspective</title>
			<description>There is considerable controversy, both within and outside the field of psychiatry, regarding the boundaries of normal sadness and clinical depression. Furthermore, while there are frequent calls for a "pluralistic", comprehensive approach to understanding depression, few writers have tried to integrate insights from the spiritual, philosophical, and neurobiological literature. The author proposes that such a synthesis is possible, and that our understanding of ordinary sorrow and clinical depression is enriched by drawing from these disparate sources. In particular, a phenomenological analysis of sorrow and depression reveals two overlapping but distinct "lifeworlds". These differ in the relational, temporal, dialectical, and intentional realms. Recent brain imaging studies are also beginning to reveal the neurobiological correlates of sorrow and depression. As we come to understand the neurobiology of these states, we may be able to correlate specific alterations in "neurocircuitry" with their phenomenological expressions.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/17</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Ronald Pies</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:17</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-17</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-17</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-17</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/16">
            
            <title>The beginning of the end for chimpanzee experiments?</title>
			<description>The advanced sensory, psychological and social abilities of chimpanzees confer upon them a profound ability to suffer when born into unnatural captive environments, or captured from the wild &#8211; as many older research chimpanzees once were &#8211; and when subsequently subjected to confinement, social disruption, and involuntary participation in potentially harmful biomedical research. Justifications for such research depend primarily on the important contributions advocates claim it has made toward medical advancements. However, a recent large-scale systematic review indicates that invasive chimpanzee experiments rarely provide benefits in excess of their profound animal welfare, bioethical and financial costs. The approval of large numbers of these experiments &#8211; particularly within the US &#8211; therefore indicates a failure of the ethics committee system. By 2008, legislative or policy bans or restrictions on invasive great ape experimentation existed in seven European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. In continuing to conduct such experiments on chimpanzees and other great apes, the US was almost completely isolated internationally. In 2007, however, the US National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources implemented a permanent funding moratorium on chimpanzee breeding, which is expected to result in a major decline in laboratory chimpanzee numbers over the next 30 years, as most are retired or die. Additionally, in 2008, The Great Ape Protection Act was introduced to Congress. The bill proposed to end invasive research and testing on an estimated 1,200 chimpanzees confined within US laboratories, and, for approximately 600 federally-owned, to ensure their permanent retirement to sanctuaries. These events have created an unprecedented opportunity for US legislators, researchers, and others, to consider a global ban on invasive chimpanzee research. Such a ban would not only uphold the best interests of chimpanzees, and other research fields presently deprived of funding, but would also increase the compliance of US animal researchers with internationally-accepted animal welfare and bioethical standards. It could even result in the first global moratorium on invasive research, for any non-human species, unless conducted in the best interests of the individual or species.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/16</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Andrew Knight</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:16</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-16</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>16</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-02</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/15">
            
            <title>
Malaria eradication in Mexico: Some historico-parasitological views on
 Cold war, deadly fevers by Marcos Cueto, Ph.D</title>
			<description>This review of Professor Marcos Cueto's Cold War Deadly Fevers: Malaria Eradication in Mexico, 1955&#8211;1975 discusses some of the historical, sociological, political and parasitological topics included in Dr. Cueto's superbly well-informed volume. The reviewer, a parasitologist, follows the trail illuminated by Dr. Cueto through the foundations of the malaria eradication campaign; the release in Mexico of the first postage stamp in the world dedicated to malaria control; epidemiological facts on malarial morbidity and mortality in Mexico when the campaign began; the emergence of problem areas that impeded eradication; considerations on mosquitoes and malaria transmission in Mexico; the role of business and society in malaria eradication; the results of the campaign; the relationship between malaria and poverty; and the parasitological lessons to be learned from the history of malaria eradication campaigns. Dr. Cueto's excellent and well-informed exploration of malaria &#8211; not merely as a disease but as a social, economic and human problem &#8211; makes this book required reading.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/15</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Filiberto Malag&#243;n</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:15</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-06-02</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-15</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-02</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/14">
            
            <title>Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials?</title>
			<description>Antidepressants, in particular newer agents, are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide with annual sales of billions of dollars. The introduction of these agents in the market has passed through seemingly strict regulatory control. Over a thousand randomized trials have been conducted with antidepressants. Statistically significant benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated and the medical literature is flooded with several hundreds of "positive" trials (both pre-approval and post-approval). However, two recent meta-analyses question this picture. The first meta-analysis used data that were submitted to FDA for the approval of 12 antidepressant drugs. While only half of these trials had formally significant effectiveness, published reports almost ubiquitously claimed significant results. "Negative" trials were either left unpublished or were distorted to present "positive" results. The average benefit of these drugs based on the FDA data was of small magnitude, while the published literature suggested larger benefits. A second meta-analysis using also FDA-submitted data examined the relationship between treatment effect and baseline severity of depression. Drug-placebo differences increased with increasing baseline severity and the difference became large enough to be clinically important only in the very small minority of patient populations with severe major depression. In severe major depression, antidepressants did not become more effective, simply placebo lost effectiveness. These data suggest that antidepressants may be less effective than their wide marketing suggests. Short-term benefits are small and long-term balance of benefits and harms is understudied. I discuss how the use of many small randomized trials with clinically non-relevant outcomes, improper interpretation of statistical significance, manipulated study design, biased selection of study populations, short follow-up, and selective and distorted reporting of results has built and nourished a seemingly evidence-based myth on antidepressant effectiveness and how higher evidence standards, with very large long-term trials and careful prospective meta-analyses of individual-level data may reach closer to the truth and clinically useful evidence.</description>
			<link>http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/14</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>John PA Ioannidis</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:14</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-05-27</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-14</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1747-5341</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-27</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
    <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
