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 June 23, 2009 Today's featured article Main Page 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 Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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.

I've replaced more instances of cite journal with {{vcite journal}} because this article is so slow to load. While I was doing this, I noticed that just about NONE of the web sources cited have listed publishers. Concerned about sourcing here, and overreliance on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The APA has updated their 2000 guidelines (which we quote) here in 2010. [1] If anyone feel ambitious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit: [2]. I added the tag to the text "The score on a rating scale alone is not sufficient..." because it is not clear who advocates this viewpoint. Is this a consensus viewpoint of the medical establishment, or an official stance of some large, well-known association? Or is it the viewpoint of the particular authors of that article? Either way I think it is important to identify whose viewpoint it is. I don't currently have access to the full text of that article so I can't check to see if the sourcing is adequate. Diagnosis is one of the key elements of this article, IMHO. The source given is a single review with two authors. That isn't adequate for stating a fact on something controversial like this. Diagnosis of depression is a highly complex and potentially thorny issue, mired in subjectivity and differences of opinion. This is why I thought that was a weasel word...it's sourcing a universal fact with a single article. Cazort (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it now. I was confused by the {{who}} template. I figured you might have meant something like {{says who}}, but my immediate response to that question would have been, "the authors of the review article"--seeing as review articles are considered particulalrly reliable by WP:MEDMOS and WP:PSTS. Still, "the authors of the review article" doesn't indicate the ultimate source of the information, and since I don't have free access to the review article's text, I'll go ahead and add the {{says who}} tag so that someone who has access to the full review can give the line a more specific attribution. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had added material on nutrition to this page, and User:SandyGeorgia reverted the edit. Nutrition currently does not have a single mention here, which seems like a glaring omission given that there is a wealth of scientific research on this. This omission is serious enough that omitting it would cause me to question this article's featured article status. As it stands, I think that the article was improved by the edit I made, which is why I am reverting again.

The material I added was sourced. The comments made when reverting, "this is an FA, pls discuss on talk and see WP:MEDRS regarding secondary reviews", do not explain to me what is inadequate about the sourcing I gave, nor was any explanation given on the talk page here, which is another reason I re-reverted. I read the page in question and I don't see what's questionable about the sources. This source: [3] is a systematic review of literature, published in a peer-reviewed journal. The other, [4] is a cohort study and is older, and I think carries less weight than a systematic review of multiple studies, but I don't see a problem with including it to source the statement I included.

Perhaps more importantly, if one disagrees with the viewpoints put forth in my edits, perhaps because there is a scientific consensus otherwise based on other work that I was not looking at, I think it's still appropriate to mention nutrition here...just deleting the material is non-constructive. Depression and nutrition has been studied extensively...something about nutrition belongs on this page. If someone thinks the viewpoint I put forth is not a good summary of what is known, then an appropriate response would be to edit and improve it, not revert the edit and remove all the material without adding any mention of the same issues. Cazort (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is not properly formatted and could use some work. It lacked WP:DUE and an encyclopedic tone. Once properly written we can add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) If it were formatted, it might be more apparent whether a review article is used (please try to take care to preserve the quality of featured articles); 2) it's too long; and 3) why is a primary source included? If a review is used, then a properly formatted and briefly written addition might be warranted, but we shouldn't be reporting cohort studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the text here until improvements take place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I agree upon further consideration that the primary study is not appropriate in this context. Thanks everyone for the participation, I think we are going to come up with something high-quality, more of my comments are scattered below. Cazort (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor nutrition has been implicated as potential risk factors for depression. Nutrients that have been linked include omega 3 fatty acids, folic acid, and vitamin B12. These factors are particularly magnified in pregnant and lactating women, due to the additional nutritional demands of pregnancy and lactation.^[1] Poor nutrition has also been implicated as a strong predictor of depressive symptoms in older adults.^[2] This knowledge has led to the use of nutritional supplements and changes in diet as a treatment for depression, often combined with other treatment approaches.

Adding correctly formatted sources here, so we can evaluate and improve the text:

• This is a review.

• Bodnar LM, Wisner KL (2005). "Nutrition and depression: implications for improving mental health among childbearing-aged women" (PDF). Biol. Psychiatry. 58 (9): 679–85. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.05.009. PMID 16040007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• I can't see any reason an 11-yo cohort study should be included.

• Boult C, Krinke UB, Urdangarin CF, Skarin V (1999). "The validity of nutritional status as a marker for future disability and depressive symptoms among high-risk older adults". J Am Geriatr Soc. 47 (8): 995–9. PMID 10443862. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The final sentence of the proposed para is uncited; perhaps we can craft something (about two sentences) from the review article. Who has the full text? We don't write from abstracts. Also, that review is five years old, and I would be very surprised if there isn't something more recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pdf of the review is freely available here. More recent reviews are this paper and PMID 20450340, which relates specifically to vitamin D. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I've added the PDF to the citation above (and corrected the PMID above, which was missing a 0). Newer review citations:

• Melanson, KJ (May 2007). "Nutrition review: Relationships of nutrition with depression and anxiety". American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 1 (3): 171–74. doi:10.1177/1559827607299725.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

• Penckofer S, Kouba J, Byrn M, Estwing Ferrans C (2010). "Vitamin D and depression: where is all the sunshine?". Issues Ment Health Nurs. 31 (6): 385–93. doi:10.3109/01612840903437657. PMID 20450340. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

If anyone has full text, we should be crafting new text from these more recent reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Melanson (2007):

Population studies have demonstrated that individuals who consume very little fish4 or who have low levels of omega-3 fatty acids in body tissues7,8 have higher rates of depression. Case control studies and cohort studies have also supported positive relationships between omega- 3 fatty acids and reduced risk of depression. 5 Some2,5,9 but not all3,5 clinical trials using omega-3 fatty acids to treat depression have shown improvements alone or in conjunction with antidepressive medications. A growing body of data supports the hypothesis that because pregnancy and lactation place such strong demands on a woman’s omega-3 fatty acid needs, postpartum depression may be related to poor omega-3 fatty acid status.2

Depression is included among the symptoms of overt clinical defi ciencies of several micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). These include ascorbic acid, thiamin, niacin, pyridoxine, cobalamin (vitamins C, B1, B3, B6, B12), folate (folic acid, a B vitamin), and the minerals zinc and selenium. However, relationships between depression and subclinical deficiencies of these nutrients require further research attention. In population studies, low levels of folate and cobalamin (vitamin B12) have been associated with depression, and folate status may be important in determining responsiveness to antidepressive treatments.2,3,11,12

...

Insufficient zinc intakes have been reported for several population groups within the United States.6 Zinc status has been inversely associated with depression in several studies, 2 but its role in the etiology and treatment of depression has not been sufficiently addressed in the scientific literature.

...

Although biological plausibility for a role of antioxidants in reducing the risk of depression is strong, this relationship has yet to be investigated.

...

...substantial evidence exists to suggest that poor dietary quality may be linked to depression.

This is basically what she says about the reported associations between depression and particular nutrients. If that is too egregious a slab of copyright text, delete it and I'll work on a summary. But I thought others without access in this discussion might want some input. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a key idea that I would like to see included is a note (using this source?) is that "Depression is included among the symptoms...of...deficiencies of several micronutrients.". Cazort (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depression (differential diagnoses) was created by a very enthusiastic but difficult editor a few months back. Some of this certainly belongs there. But whether it belongs here, I'll leave that to others. I'm frying other fish. If anybody wants paywall articles, though, I'm happy to email them. Anthony (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I was not aware of that article. I see some problems with that article, particularly in the way it opens, but I suppose that's another discussion. Since differential diagnosis is a process, however, I don't see it as being mutually exclusive with discussing the same conditions raised there as causes of depression on this page. It seems that all adequately-sourceable material would belong both places, although the nature of the discussion and perhaps the choice of what details to include and how to present it would be very different on the two pages. There's also something that strikes me as problematically WP:POV with that page; it repeatedly refers to misdiagnosis but it doesn't give a full explanation of how depression (or "misdiagnosis" of depression) is defined. It seems that we're almost getting into an unresolved etiological and ontological question--if depression is caused by malnutrition, disease, other factors, then is it "really depression" or is it just "depression-like symptoms"? I don't think there's a clear consensus about this in the scientific literature. Isn't depression itself just a construct, defined by the confluence of a certain complex of symptoms? There's a degree to which even psychiatrists admit this arbitrariness...David D. Burns for instance argues that depression and anxiety disorders have ill-defined boundaries and often co-occur. But, since depression is defined in terms of its symptoms, it seems to make sense to BE the symptoms, and then to discuss all possible causes (which are discussed as causes of major depressive disorder) in the main article...as there would be something inherently WP:POV about separating them out without sources--and even if some sources separate certain causes out like this, in the interest of WP:NPOV, we'd have to include both perspectives. Cazort (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penckofer (2010) cites a couple of more recent reviews of nutrition/depression, but I've just read one and the tone is rather zealous. I'm going to sleep now. Anthony (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusions in this article are pretty bold, particularly: "No matter which mechanism(s) prove to be true, epidemiological data and clinical studies already show that omega-3 fatty acids can effectively treat depression" communicates that this is fairly well-known. There's also some mention of tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine, and methionine. And it also mentions folate and B12, and in addition, magnesium.

I do think that the issue raised in this review needs to be taken into consideration (and possibly explicitly mentioned?) in maintaining WP:NPOV...notably that "Nutritional therapies have now become a long-forgotten method of treatment, because they were of no interest to pharmaceutical companies that could not patent or own them". Perhaps this view should be attributed to the authors of the study but I think it's a view that needs to be included. Whether it belongs on this page, or on a more general page (because in the "Conclusions" section the authors are talking about mental disorders in general, not specifically major depression) is another question. Cazort (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to all of the full text sources. Could someone please propose new text here, based on the best reviews, so we can all tweak it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why there's a big huge chunk of text in the "To do" subpage? What has been done? Why are those issues not in talk page sub-headings? This is a featured article, and there should not be a big to-do list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, little to nothing has been done with most (maybe all) of that stuff since it was added a couple years ago when we were preparing the article for FAC. While it seems pretty innocuous to me, I admit that it's quite a clutter. My suggestion would be for somebody (I haven't bothered to figure it out yet) to collapse the list (i.e., using the same markup that's used to tuck away trolling threads). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think Paul Gene and I wrote in it way bak when we started buffing it up. I think it should be archived into the archives. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to Paul, anyway? Didn't agree with him on everything, but he sure knew his stuff--I wonder what he'd think of the current version of the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "to do" stuff is actually in a subpage called Talk:Major depressive disorder/to do, which was included in this page using a template {{todo}}. I've copied the contents to the current archive page, and removed the inclusion. The only thing left is to delete the subpage. Can I just do that, or does it need to be MfD'ed or something? Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Depression_(mood)#Youtube_external_link about adding this video as an external link to some depression-related articles. Your input is welcome. Anthony (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Template:Depression video[reply]

I'd now like to add the link. Rather than create an External links section, which attract massive amounts of cruft, I suggest inserting something like this near the lead. Your thoughts on linking to this video, and linking via this template rather than an EL section would be appreciated. Some arguments for and against linking can be found in the discussion at Talk:Depression_(mood)#Youtube_external_link. I think this is a fair summary:

• Since the video says nothing the article doesn't already say, inserting the link appears to breach WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The rationale for linking, despite this, is that concentration problems are a feature of MDD, and audiovisual presentation would be more accessible to many of this article's most vulnerable visitors. So the link does provide a unique resource beyond what the article text could provide: accessibility.
• The reliability of the content has not been disputed.
• The copyright status, CC-BY-SA, has been confirmed.

Cheers. Anthony (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's not even mentioned here despite this article's "featured" status. Can someone have a look at Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.jad.2008.04.009, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.jad.2008.04.009 instead.? I've added the more famous studies of Caspi and Kendler to the 5-HTTLPR article (these have thousands respectively hundreds of citations). But I don't have on-line access to Brown's more recent review (which is in a more obscure venue). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]