Take a look at two pages apparently reviewed by the Cleveland Clinic over at WebMD:

Drug Treatment for Depression

Psychotherapy to Treat Depression

Medication is mentioned 4 times in the psychotherapy article. Psychotherapy is mentioned zero times in the medication article. The words “medical cause” is also mentioned in the psychotherapy article in relation to treating depression’s “medical cause” as well as its psychological and social aspects.

What’s wrong with this picture?

1. If there were an identified “medical cause” of most people’s depression, there would also be a medical test, such as a blood test, that could readily test for this “medical cause.” The fact is, there is no research that supports that there is a direct medical cause to most people’s depression. There are some wonderful medical theories about depression, but those theories are just that — unproven theories that vie for attention with equally strong psychological theories.

2. When discussing psychotherapy for depression, why is it necessary to mention another treatment option available four times, but not pay the same respect to psychotherapy in the medication article? This isn’t just unfair to psychotherapy, but also ignores the large body of empirical research that clearly shows that patients are best served by the combination of psychotherapy and medication for nearly any type of depression. Why is there this obvious editorial bias at WebMD and by the reviewers at Cleveland Clinic?

3. What kind of disservice are the folks who publish this tripe doing to people who are relying on a service like this to publish unbiased, objective information on a person’s treatment options? There’s some pretty significant, convincing research that shows that certain types of psychotherapy are even appropriate for people with severe depression. And there are also some pretty interesting studies to show that many modern, commonly-prescribed antidepressant medications are no better than their older counterparts (and there’s even a study or two that shows some modern antidepressants scored no better than a placebo — that’s a sugar pill, folks! — in treatment for depression). By not presenting an objective, full view of the entire body of research, the folks who publish these articles are just repeating the common, modern myths associated with depression treatment. Repeating these myths doesn’t make them more true, even when supposedly reviewed by the Cleveland Clinic.

Such editorial sloppiness shows the lack of concern for people searching for objective and reliable treatment information from a trusted source of health information online.

Dr. John Grohol is the CEO and founder of Psych Central. He is an author, researcher and expert in mental health online, and has been writing about online behavior, mental health and psychology issues -- as well as the intersection of technology and human behavior -- since 1992. Dr. Grohol sits on the editorial board of the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking and is a founding board member and treasurer of the Society for Participatory Medicine.

Like this author?
Catch up on other posts by John M. Grohol, PsyD (or subscribe to their feed).

Comments

This post currently has 2 comments. You can read the comments or leave your own thoughts on our new comments page.

Trackbacks

No trackbacks yet to this post.

    Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 7 Feb 2006
    Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.