Major depressive disorder is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2009.
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 December 6, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

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

Psychology Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Wikiproject MCB Template:WP1.0

Archives

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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This whole section makes it sound like reporting bias is exclusive to antidepressants or something. There are literally hundreds of studies and reviews on reporting bias. Here's just a few: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19584207?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://content.nejm.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=jama&resid=291/20/2457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3576013?dopt=Abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrewler (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting sources; but I've read, re-read, and re-re-read that section, and for the life of me I can't figure out where it's suggesting that nothing else is biased. Are there particular words or phrases that you find problematic? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do the first or third of those sources (I currently can access the full text of only the second) actually mention antidepressant studies and note that publication bias extends beyond these studies? If not, then while your point here may be perfectly valid, it could turn out to be an original synthesis that falls outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three studies do not discriminate in what drugs were included in their meta analysis. Perhaps my comment was out of line if I can't find a source for that specific comment -- although I haven't really looked. I think there should be a link to a separate page and maybe include a special section for specific classes of drugs that may be more biased than others (if there are credible sources of course). I don't see why antidepressants (does not even differentiate the type) include this special section while other drugs do not? No clue on the policy for that. Skrewler (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antidepressant: "An antidepressant is a psychiatric medication used to alleviate mood disorders, such as major depression and dysthymia." It makes sense that they're used most commonly to treat depression. MichaelExe (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not germane to any point made in this discussion. Skrewler (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. I thought you were asking why antidepressants would have their own section, and not other less frequently used drugs used for the treatment of depression (some antipsychotics). PMID 18514154, PMID 19666685 and PMID 11229783 might be useful for the Antidepressants section as a whole. MichaelExe (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that 60% of people who commit suicide have depression. Surely, it is closer to 100% at the moment of suicide? I think this is supposed to read that 60% of patients had already been diagnosed with depression before killing themselves. I think this is an important distinction to make. Can someone who has access to the reliable source cited ("Barlow 2005"?) please check that this is what was meant by the source? Thank you! Gregcaletta (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis (hallucinations and delusions), drugs ("Over fifty percent of suicides are related to alcohol or drug dependence. In adolescents alcohol or drug misuse playing a role in up to 70 percent of suicides"), having a reaaaaalllly bad day (so you can't say they had depression, because there are minimum durations for every type). "Suicide may occur for a number of reasons, including depression, shame, guilt, desperation, physical pain, emotional pressure, anxiety, financial difficulties, or other undesirable situations." Also, "Studies show a high incidence of mental disorders in suicide victims at the time of their death with the total figure ranging from 98% to 87.3% with mood disorders and substance abuse being the two most common." MichaelExe (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. Somewhat counterintuitively, there are folks who look forward to suicide, seeing it as an escape from whatever maladies are plaguing them. And these maladies don't even have to be depression of any sort: Samurai commit seppuku out of shame; a friend of mine thought suicide was kind of cool, and could talk about hurting herself with a smile on her face; George Sanders killed himself out of boredom; and Hunter S. Thompson (I don't think anyone will ever really figure that guy out) did so because "football season is over". Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, I'd suggest that many suicides are better explained in social-psychological, sociological, philosophical, or literary terms than in clinical ones. We have the kamikaze and other suicide attackers; we've got prisoners who hang themselves in order to regain from the state some control over their destiny; but there's also Socrates, who (among other reasons) felt he had no right to do so. And then there are various people who (according to Albert Camus) remain unreconciled with existential reality (i.e., the Absurd), or (according to Émile Durkheim) with social facts (i.e., integration and regulation). There's even the Shakespearean suicide of "star-crossed love"; nobody says, "Well, Romeo and Juliet just had MDD. So did Antony and Cleopatra." And, last but not least, let us not forget the mass suicide by a group that (quite understandably) could find no other logical way to board the flying saucer that was following a comet (social psychologists had a field day with that one). In fact, come to think of it, even though I'm the one who added that 60% statistic, I actually find it surprisingly high. In any case, the reasons people kill themselves are probably as varied as the reasons they do anything else. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have been suffering from paranoia and depression for over 6 months now, can anybody tell me how i should help myself overcome this disorder. this is a relapse which follows the one i had earlier about 2 1/2 years ago. that one was really bad, but i got out of it in 3 months time. this one is taking longer, GOD KNOWS FOR WHAT REASON.--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this, but I'm afraid there's not much that Wikipedia can do, apart from providing you with information and resources in articles like this one or this one, or (if by "paranoia" you mean anxiety) in those like this one or this one. Apart from that, I'd recommend the same thing that anybody else would recommend: namely, that you talk to a counselor or physician about the matter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the link to Psycheducation.org . The description is lively, popular and entertaining. However, the author is clearly out of his depth. For example, he states as a confirmed fact that antidepressants work by stimulating BDNF and reversing brain shrinkage. That is misleading and oversimplifying the state of the art much like the original serotonin hypothesis did. I think this link should be removed. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the site, but I've been tempted to remove it myself, simply because it doesn't focus on MDD in the first place; it focuses more on BPD, especially bipolar II. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts if the link to "Depression out of the shadows show" Depression, out of the shadows is appropriate. It features infamous Charles Nemeroff who took ~2 million from pharmaceutical companies without reporting it, "authored" ghost written articles, argued (we now know why) against the FDA antidepressant - suicide link warnings, and is not really a credible source by any stretch of imagination. The documentary was criticized by the Columbia Journalism Review (see here [1], by other mental health advocates for giving disproportionate time to ECT and mentioning CBT only in passing, and at best deserves only "C" grade, for example [2] [3]. Stanford Wellsphere.org holds similar opinion [4]. Should we keep it or delete it? Is there anything better around to replace it? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one encompasses anxiety and stress along with depression, but no discussion of depression would be complete without mention of these comorbid and/or causal factors. The man behind this film is an MD and a published researcher,[5][6] and looks reliable to me--certainly a great deal more reliable than Nemeroff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image makes no sense to me as an explanation of depression. The picture is not explained in the text, as is required by the fair use criteria for a copyrighted image. Therefore, I don't think fair use of this justified. Regard, —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree.--Garrondo (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to receive agreement! The image was not in the article when it passed FA. I am quite sure it would have been removed then as there is no rationale for using it. . It is a relatively new addition to the article and I cannot even figure out what it is saying about depression! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it just looks like some lying in bed sleeping at night.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is that big orange-yellow thing to the right with tentacles? In any event, what does it describe about depression that cannot be expressed in words? Since it is a fair use image violating a copyright, the standards for inclusion are very high. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]