Rebecca Hardy’s research while affiliated with University College London and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (4)


Active Placebos versus Antidepressants for Depression
  • Literature Review

February 2004

·

524 Reads

·

387 Citations

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

·

·

Rebecca Hardy

Although there is a consensus that antidepressants are effective in depression, placebo effects are also thought to be substantial. Side effects of antidepressants may reveal the identity of medication to participants or investigators and thus may bias the results of conventional trials using inert placebos. Using an 'active' placebo which mimics some of the side effects of antidepressants may help to counteract this potential bias. To investigate the efficacy of antidepressants when compared with 'active' placebos. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review groups's search strategy was used to search MEDLINE (1966-2000), PsychLIT (1980-2000) and EMBASE (1974-2000) and this was last done in July 2000. Reference lists from relevant articles and textbooks were searched and 12 specialist journals were handsearched up to 1996. Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos in people with depression. Since many different outcome measures were used a standard measure of effect was calculated for each trial. A subgroup analysis of inpatient and outpatient trials was conducted. Two reviewers independently assessed whether each trial met inclusion criteria. Nine studies involving 751 participants were included. Two of them produced effect sizes which showed a consistent and statistically significant difference in favour of the active drug. Combining all studies produced a pooled estimate of effect of 0.39 standard deviations (confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.54) in favour of the antidepressant measured by improvement in mood. There was high heterogeneity due to one strongly positive trial. Sensitivity analysis omitting this trial reduced the pooled effect to 0.17 (0.00 to 0.34). The pooled effect for inpatient and outpatient trials was highly sensitive to decisions about which combination of data was included but inpatient trials produced the lowest effects. The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small. This suggests that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos. Further research into unblinding is warranted.



Antidepressants using active placebos

February 2001

·

19 Reads

·

18 Citations

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Although there is a consensus that antidepressants are effective in depression, placebo effects are also thought to be substantial. Side effects of antidepressants may reveal the identity of medication to participants or investigators and thus may bias the results of conventional trials using inert placebos. Using an 'active' placebo which mimics some of the side effects of antidepressants may help to counteract this potential bias. To investigate the efficacy of antidepressants when compared with 'active' placebos. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review groups's search strategy was used to search MEDLINE (1966-2000), PsychLIT (1980-2000) and EMBASE (1974-2000) and this was last done in July 2000. Reference lists from relevant articles and textbooks were searched and 12 specialist journals were handsearched up to 1996. Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos in people with depression. Since many different outcome measures were used a standard measure of effect was calculated for each trial. A subgroup analysis of inpatient and outpatient trials was conducted. Two reviewers independently assessed whether each trial met inclusion criteria. Nine studies involving 751 participants were included. Two of them produced effect sizes which showed a consistent and statistically significant difference in favour of the active drug. Combining all studies produced a pooled estimate of effect of 0.39 standard deviations (confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.54) in favour of the antidepressant measured by improvement in mood. There was high heterogeneity due to one strongly positive trial. Sensitivity analysis omitting this trial reduced the pooled effect to 0.17 (0.00 to 0.34). The pooled effect for inpatient and outpatient trials was highly sensitive to decisions about which combination of data was included but inpatient trials produced the lowest effects. The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small. This suggests that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos. Further research into unblinding is warranted.


Figure 1 of 1
Meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos
  • Article
  • Full-text available

April 1998

·

276 Reads

·

145 Citations

The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science

Unblinding effects may introduce bias into clinical trials. The use of active placebos to mimic side-effects of medication may therefore produce more rigorous evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants. Trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos were located. A standard measure of effect was calculated for each trial and weighted pooled estimates obtained. Heterogeneity was examined and sensitivity analyses performed. A subgroup analysis of in-patient and out-patient trials was conducted. Only two of the nine studies examined produced effect sizes which showed a consistent significant difference in favour of the active drug. Combining all studies produced pooled effect size estimates of between 0.41 (0.27-0.56) and 0.46 (0.31-0.60) with high heterogeneity due to one strongly positive trial. Sensitivity analyses excluding this and one other trial reduced the pooled effect to between 0.21 (0.03-0.38) and 0.27 (0.10-0.45). Meta-analysis is very sensitive to decisions about exclusions. Previous general meta-analyses have found combined effect sizes in the range 0.4-0.8. The more conservative estimates produced here suggest that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos.

Download

Citations (3)


... In medication trials, this may occur because of side effects. (Kirsch, 2014;Moncrieff, Wessely, & Hardy, 1998) ...

Reference:

More treatment but no less depression. An uncomfortable paradox
Meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos

The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science

... This is a setting in which the role of BB may be substantially higher than in active placebo studies, as has repeatedly been shown in medication studies. [9] Also, their numbers of enrolled subjects are higher. Thus, the 'vaccine blinded-RCT artifact' may play a bigger role in the mRNA studies. ...

Antidepressants using active placebos
  • Citing Article
  • February 2001

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

... This distinction is essential in clinical trials, as it directly impacts the reliability of blinding procedures and helps isolate the true efficacy of the tested intervention. Trials using active placebos often show stronger patient reactions compared to those with inert placebos [20]. ...

Active Placebos versus Antidepressants for Depression
  • Citing Article
  • February 2004

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews