Major depressive disorder is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 31, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted April 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Does anyone have objections to adding yoga, bibliotherapy and computer-assisted psychotherapy under "Other methods of treatment". Proposed text and references are under title "More methods of treatment" in (now in Archives, 26 September). Natural123 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional treatment information must be referenced with a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that exercise, socialization, and relaxation are all treatments that have been shown effective, they should be covered first. Any mention of a treatment that is hard to distinguish from another should be presented in proper context. Eg what's commonly referred to as "yoga" is hard to distinguish from a combination of relaxation and mild exercise. --Ronz 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although yoga has something in common with both relaxation and exercise it is usually not classified under any of these. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_%28alternative_medicine%29)- "Yoga is a healing system of theory and practice, its a combination of breathing exercises, physical postures, and meditation, practiced for over 5,000 years." For differences between yoga and excercize you may see http://www.mandalayoga.net/index-newsletter-en-exephysi.html. Research I refer to is specifically about how yoga affects depression. Natural123 14:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections so long as they are properly cited, as Ohnoitsjamie noted, and the information is placed in a proper context. I.e. the information is specifically for people diagnosed with clinical depression, not simply depressive mood and that you note the severity of the depression tested. For example, the Yoga study mentioned seems to have been for patients with depressive mood, not actually diagnosed as having clinical depression, so it would not be appropriate here. Collectonian 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; similarily, chocolate helps depressive mood but not clinical depression. Anarchist42 21:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good distinction. These sources are about clinical (unipolar, major) depression

Yoga - Pilkington K, Kirkwood G, Rampes H, Richardson J. - Yoga for depression: the research evidence - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16185770&dopt=Citation

Bibliotherapy - Cuijpers P - Bibliotherapy in unipolar depression: a meta-analysis - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9194011&dopt=Abstract

Computer-assisted psychotherapy - http://www.finddepressiontreatment.com/depression-software.html - This page is an overview of computer-assisted psychotherapy and it ranks number 1 on Google for "computer-assisted psychotherapy depression". It also contains links confirming efficiency of this therapy for clinical depression. Natural123 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the WP:VERIFY policy and the reliable source guidelines to help you in determining what is or is not a good source. While the two links from NIH are good, the one you give for Computer-assisted psychotherapy does not meet the requirements for use, nor does the one you gave earlier for the differences between yoga and exercise. Collectonian —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-assisted psychotherapy link may not meet the requirements, but it is a good compilation of reliable sources. Natural123 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Bupropion mentioned here? It's completely different from SSRIs and should mentioned along with MAOIs. I edited earlier today adding a mention of dopamine reuptake inhibitors and it got taken out. I have no idea why. Why can't this be included?

Because MAOIs are already mentioned. No need to repeat. Collectonian (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bupropion is not an MAOI or an SSRI. It isn't mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.33.241 (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and have added it :) Collectonian (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although not forbidden expressly, the use of the references in the lead part is generally discouraged. The lead part is a summary of the main article and all the necessary references should already be there. For example, Ref 1 is used multiple times in the Diagnosis section and so is not needed in the lead. Suicide should be addressed in more details later in the article, and ref 2 could be moved there. Paul gene 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where you've seen that? I've never seen anything about that in any of the style guides and stuff that I have looked at. Considering the amount of info often included in the intro that is not included in the article, that seems odd to me. Collectonian 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody pointed that out to me previously. But now I am looking at the MED FAs, and all of them have references in the lead. Sorry for the confusion Paul gene 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a lot of potential for biasedness and POV in how certain treatments are categorized and ordered on this page. I am moving light therapy out of the "other methods" section as many recent studies have found it to be equally effective with many of the more mainstream forms of medication, and the studies are beginning to show a consensus. I also think that one could argue for putting psychotherapy above medication because it is common to have psychotherapy in the absence of medication, but not vice-versa.

The "other methods" mixes too many different things: things like exercise which seem to be more of a supplemental treatment, and things like the "archaic methods" which aren't really treatments so much as they are historical background of what we did wrong in the past! I may move "archaic methods" into the history section where I think it is more appropriate. Cazort 12:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is potential bias, true, and the entire treatment section needs overhauling. However, you're deciding to move light therapy out of the other methods section on the basis that you feel it is equally effective with other meds also reflects NPOV. Such a major change should be discussed here first, and has been undone. Light Therapy, even by your own additions and sources, is only effective in some forms of depression and is still under study. It is not a primary method of treatment, hence it being in the other methods section. The main section is for the mainstream forms, while the other section is for those that are less used, experimental, and still under study. For now, please leave archaic where it is. Why they are archaic, at least one is still used, even if rarely. Collectonian 14:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there is only one reference in the medication section, and it is basically an educational brochure, not a primary source that can attest to the effectiveness of treatment by medication. There are plenty of studies and articles out there that do this--far more studies than there are for light therapy (or any of the other alternative treatments mentioned). But the actual results of these studies are not that different from the studies I added. I think that this article would be greatly improved by citing and summarizing such primary sources. Maybe doing that would help resolve this issue. From my reading of the primary literature, there is at least as much uncertainty about antidepressant medication as about light therapy; the main difference I see is that there have been vastly more studies done on medication, which, taking the uncertainty into light, paints a very different picture. Cazort 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to review primary literature on depression as it comprises tens of thousands of references, even secondary literature probably goes to more than a thousand titles. So for most purposes the NIMH brochures or consensus guidelines are just fine. If you are interested in working with primary sources you can contribute to the antidepressants article, or on articles on separate antidepressants or on light therapy for that matter. Paul gene 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive lack of references in the psychotherapy section of this page. I am adding a tag and recommend that people who know more about this stuff add appropriate references and delete material which you cannot find adequate references for. Cazort 12:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are aware of it. The entire article is in need of clean up, which is being worked on by myself and at least one other editor, including rewrites and sourcing. It is a huge article, however, so it is taking some time. Collectonian 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just pulled this out: <ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/PDF/1997/May/BLAND.pdf | last = Bland | first = R.C. |date=1997 | title = Epidemiology of Affective Disorders: A Review | journal = Can J Psychiatry | volume = 42 | pages = 367?377 }}</ref> "The requested URL /Publications/Archives/PDF/1997/May/BLAND.pdf was not found on this server." Would be good to have a replacement... Regards, Ben Aveling 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of probability based on personal judgment do not hold up to scientific scrutiny, and thus should be omitted from any article that attempts to be 'objective'. Also, I edited the 'neurological' section to depict what experts believe; views that have not been scientifically proven should not be stated ad nauseum. It is far more accurate to state that most experts accept a certain view.

ShadowCreatorII (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a cranial electrotherapy stimulation section under Treatment, because this is an FDA-approved method for the treatment of depression. This is stated in the CES article, and confirmed by some simple Googling (e.g.' "cranial electrotherapy stimulation" depression FDA ').

I find it interesting to note that two newer, expensive, and (in the case of TMS) non-FDA-approved procedures (TMS & VNS) involving electrical induction are listed, but the older, cheaper, FDA-approved, at-home CES device was not. Not trying to start a debate here or anything, I just think it's kind of sad that even on Wikipedia there's a dearth of information on this treatment. (Why don't we have information on the "conforming" frequency/power output of FDA-approved CES devices? Why don't we have info on fda-approved devices so that one can differentiate them from the numerous non-approved devices on the market?) --Lode Runner (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]