McPherson, Susan (2019) BMJ Rapid Response: What's wrong with the NICE depression guideline? BMJ.
McPherson, Susan (2019) BMJ Rapid Response: What's wrong with the NICE depression guideline? BMJ.
McPherson, Susan (2019) BMJ Rapid Response: What's wrong with the NICE depression guideline? BMJ.
Abstract
In the joint stakeholder position statement referred to in the above article, six methodological issues were raised concerning the 2018 NICE draft depression guideline. These were: that patient experience research has been left out; that long-term outcome data has been left out; that chronic and complex forms of depression have been separated into misleading categories of depression; that severity has been misrepresented, disadvantaging people with the most severe forms of depression; that an experimental and confounded network meta-analysis has been used as a primary rather than supplementary basis for recommendations; that quality of life outcomes have been left out(1). In a series of articles written with experts in the field, I have looked at some of these methodological issues in detail and provide an overview of this series here.
Item Type: | Other |
---|---|
Additional Information: | Rapid response to: NICE guidance on depression: 35 health organisations demand “full and proper” revision BMJ 2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2356 (Published 28 May 2019) |
Divisions: | Faculty of Science and Health Faculty of Science and Health > Health and Social Care, School of |
SWORD Depositor: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Date Deposited: | 25 Sep 2023 14:25 |
Last Modified: | 16 May 2024 20:01 |
URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/29907 |